People v. Allen
310 Mich. App. 328
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant, required to register under Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) after a prior sexual-conduct conviction, registered an address on Clarksville Road but was found at his wife's residence at 211 W. Riverside in March 2013.
- Police visited the Clarksville Road trailer multiple times and observed signs it appeared uninhabitable; they later found defendant at his wife Lisa Allen’s home where he admitted he had stayed elsewhere for weeks.
- Witnesses: Lucinda Pilot (former occupant of the trailer) and Kathryn Perry (owner of the trailer) testified that defendant seldom slept at Clarksville Road; Perry initially had been excluded for violating a sequestration order but later permitted to testify after a compromise.
- Lisa Allen testified on rebuttal that defendant slept at her house roughly five days a week and had been there about six months.
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of failing to comply with SORA (second offense); sentenced as a habitual offender to 2 years to 126 months. He appealed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary and privilege errors, and sentencing errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to file witness list | Prosecutor: defense was allowed to call Perry and prejudice is not shown | Allen: counsel’s failure prevented proper witness presentation and caused compromise allowing Lisa’s rebuttal | Counsel deficient for not filing list, but no prejudice; conviction stands because evidence sufficient and Lisa likely would have been endorsed anyway |
| Failure to request Walker hearing / Miranda warnings | Prosecution: questioning at wife’s house was noncustodial; statements admissible | Allen: statements involuntary, counsel ineffective for not seeking Walker hearing | No Walker hearing required; questioning noncustodial and voluntary; counsel not ineffective |
| Admission of wife’s testimony without advising spousal/Fifth Amendment privileges | Prosecution: wife was known and available; testimony permissible rebuttal | Allen: trial court should have informed Lisa of testimonial and Fifth Amendment privileges; late endorsement was sandbagging | Defendant lacks standing to assert Lisa’s testimonial or Fifth Amendment privileges; late endorsement not unfair; allowing Lisa to testify was not reversible error |
| Sentencing enhancement and guideline scoring (MCL 769.10 & PRV 7) | Prosecution: habitual-offender statute applies; no statutory prohibition on using prior conviction for further enhancement | Allen: trial court improperly applied MCL 769.10 and over-scored PRV 7, producing excessive range | Court vacated sentence and remanded: MCL 28.729(1)(b) (SORA-specific recidivist cap of 7 years) controls over general MCL 769.10 enhancement; PRV 7 was mis-scored and recommended range reduced (remand for resentencing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficiency/prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required only when person is in custody)
- Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (voluntariness and limits of noncustodial interrogation)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (testifying spouse is holder of testimonial privilege)
- People v. Carbin, 463 Mich. 590 (prejudice standard under Strickland applied in Michigan)
- People v. LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)