People of Michigan v. William Frank Sikorski Jr
320867
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Defendant Sikorski convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I): (1) penile/vaginal penetration during commission of another felony (MCL 750.520b(1)(c)) and (2) CSC I as an actor aided/abetted by another and using force or coercion (MCL 750.520b(1)(d)(ii)), plus domestic assault.
- Victim and witness JS testified defendant vaginally penetrated the victim while forcing JS to orally penetrate her; both testified they were afraid and were coerced; defendant struck and choked the victim.
- Court of Appeals previously held the two CSC I convictions implicated double jeopardy; Michigan Supreme Court remanded to reconsider given how the jury was instructed.
- On remand the trial court’s final jury instructions distinguished two separate penetrations: defendant’s vaginal penetration (Count 1) and an accomplice’s oral penetration (Count 2).
- This opinion addresses (a) whether the two convictions punished the same act (double jeopardy/multiple punishments), (b) sufficiency of evidence for the aiding-and-abetting CSC I conviction, and (c) whether judicial fact-finding in scoring sentencing offense variables (OVs) requires resentencing under Lockridge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two CSC I convictions punish the same act (double jeopardy—multiple punishments) | Prosecution: Final jury instructions treated the counts as separate penetrations (vaginal by defendant; oral by JS), so convictions punish separate acts | Sikorski: Both convictions ultimately rested on the same underlying single act of penetration, violating double jeopardy | No double jeopardy violation; jury instructions treated counts as separate penetrations and evidence established two independent penetrations |
| Sufficiency of evidence for CSC I under MCL 750.520b(1)(d)(ii) (aiding/abetting + force/coercion) | Prosecution: Testimony showed JS orally penetrated victim while defendant used force/coercion and aided/abets; aider need not have specific intent if he assisted knowing principal had requisite intent | Sikorski: JS was forced, so could not be an accomplice; thus aiding/abetting not established | Evidence sufficient: JS’s participation (even if coerced) assisted defendant and met aider-and-abettor legal standard; force/coercion proven by testimony of choking, striking, threats |
| Whether judicial factfinding in scoring OVs (4,7,10,11,13,14) violated Alleyne/Lockridge and requires resentencing | Prosecution: Some OV scores supported by record and by jury verdicts/prior convictions; certain OV scores (e.g., OV 11, OV 13) not subject to Alleyne limits | Sikorski: Trial court used facts not found by jury to increase guideline floor, requiring remand under Lockridge/Crosby | Remand for Crosby proceeding: Several OV scores (OV 4, 10, 14) rested on judicial factfinding and Lockridge error preserved; however scoring of OV 7 and OV 11 and OV 13 have adequate support (OV 11 supported by jury finding of two penetrations; OV 13 may rely on prior convictions exception) |
| Whether the Lockridge error changed the applicable guidelines cell and requires full resentencing | Prosecution: Even removing judicially found OV points, defendant remains in same OV level and guidelines cell | Sikorski: Any preserved Lockridge error requires Crosby remand regardless of cell change | Although recalculation leaves defendant in the same guidelines cell, a Crosby remand is required because defendant preserved the Lockridge/Alleyne challenge and trial court’s mandatory use of guidelines was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockridge v. Michigan, 498 Mich 358 (courts must remedy mandatory judicial factfinding that increases guidelines floor)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Miller v. Michigan, 498 Mich 13 (discussion of double jeopardy protections)
- Johnson v. People, 406 Mich 320 (legislative intent that aggravating circumstances be alternative, not multiply punishments)
- Rogers v. People, 142 Mich App 88 (multiple penetrations by different actors may support separate CSC convictions)
- Dowdy v. People, 148 Mich App 517 (Legislature intended separate punishment for separate penetrations)
- Olszewski v. People, 119 Mich App 455 (aider-and-abettor liability where defendant aided with knowledge principal had requisite intent)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (procedure for facts that increase penalty; cited for Lockridge principles)