People v. Allen
499 Mich. 307
| Mich. | 2016Background
- Defendant had a 2007 misdemeanor CSC conviction that required sex-offender registration; he pled guilty in 2010 to a first SORA felony (SORA-1) for failing to register.
- In 2013 defendant was convicted by jury of failing to register a second time (SORA-2) after police found him at a different address.
- SORA-1 (MCL 28.729(1)(a)) is a Class F felony with a 4-year max; SORA-2 (MCL 28.729(1)(b)) is a Class D felony with a 7-year max.
- Trial court sentenced defendant under the second-offense habitual-offender statute (MCL 769.10(1)(a)) to 2–10.5 years (IV2 × 7 years). Prosecutor had filed habitual-offender notice.
- Court of Appeals vacated the habitual-enhanced sentence, reasoning SORA’s subsections represent one offense with escalating punishments so the HOA enhancement must be IV2 times the SORA-1 4-year maximum (6 years).
- Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and reversed Court of Appeals: it held SORA-1/2/3 create separate offenses and that nothing in SORA or the HOA bars using a SORA-1 conviction to enhance a SORA-2 sentence under the HOA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a SORA-2 conviction may be enhanced under the second-offense habitual-offender statute (MCL 769.10(1)(a)). | Prosecution: SORA-1, -2, -3 are separate offenses; "that offense" in HOA refers to SORA-2, so IV2 × 7 years is permitted. | Defendant: SORA subsections are one offense with escalating penalties; HOA should apply to "that offense" as the base SORA offense (4-year max), limiting enhancement to IV2 × 4 = 6 years. | Held: SORA-1/2/3 are distinct felonies; HOA may enhance a SORA-2 sentence. The trial court permissibly imposed 2–10.5 years. |
| Whether SORA or the HOA contains language precluding double use of the same prior conviction to both elevate the underlying SORA offense and as an HOA predicate. | Prosecution: No statutory bar or express exclusion; Legislature knows how to bar HOA application but did not do so for SORA. | Defendant: Using the same prior SORA conviction for both purposes is impermissible double enhancement. | Held: No statutory prohibition; Legislature’s silence and prior practice support concurrent application; double use is permissible. |
| Whether MCL 769.10(1)(a) phrase "that offense" refers to the general SORA provision or to the specific subsection of conviction. | Prosecution: Refers to the specific subsequent felony convicted (i.e., SORA-2). | Defendant: Refers to the underlying SORA offense generally (so first-conviction max = 4 years). | Held: "That offense" refers to the subsequent felony of conviction (SORA-2), so the relevant first-conviction max is 7 years. |
| Whether caselaw supports applying HOA to offenses that escalate on recidivism (e.g., OUIL/OWI scheme). | Prosecution: Bewersdorf and related cases treat analogous recidivist statutes as separate offenses subject to HOA. | Defendant: Distinctions exist and permitting double enhancement yields excessive punishment. | Held: Bewersdorf and cases applying HOA to statutory recidivism schemes support application here. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bewersdorf, 438 Mich 55 (1991) (held recidivist OWI provisions are separate offenses and may be harmonized with habitual-offender enhancement)
- People v Allen, 310 Mich App 328 (2015) (Court of Appeals decision at issue below)
- People v VanderMel, 156 Mich App 231 (1986) (Court of Appeals upheld concurrent application of recidivist statute and habitual-offender statutes)
- People v Fetterley, 229 Mich App 511 (1998) (discussed when elevation of an offense, not mere punishment enhancement, permits concurrent HOA application)