People v. Armisted
295 Mich. App. 32
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant furnished a cellular phone to an inmate at TRRP and was charged under MCL 800.283a for furnishing a phone to a prisoner in a correctional facility.
- TRRP inmates are parolees, not yet released into the community, and the facility is operated by the Department of Corrections.
- The district court bound over defendant to the circuit court after finding probable cause; the circuit court later denied the motion to quash the information.
- Defendant pleaded a conditional no-contest plea after the circuit court held TRRP inmates were prisoners under the statute, with sentencing agreed at 1 to 10 years as a fourth habitual offender.
- Defendant contended plea coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel, challenged jail credit, and argued the sentence was disproportionate, but the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court determined that TRRP is a state prison for the purposes of MCL 800.283a, and addressed related issues including plea voluntariness, time credits, and proportionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TRRP inmates are prisoners under MCL 800.283a | Huggins argues TRRP inmates are parolees, not prisoners | Defendant contends TRRP is not a correctional facility and inmates are not prisoners | TRRP inmates are prisoners under the statute and TRRP is a correctional facility |
| Whether TRRP qualifies as a correctional facility under the statute | TRRP’s status as a parolee program argues against facility status | TRRP operates under Corrections and confines inmates; fits correctional facility concept | TRRP is a correctional facility for purposes of MCL 800.283a |
| Whether the plea was involuntary due to coercion by counsel | Affidavit claims coercion and threat of longer sentence | Defendant understood plea and sentencing agreement; coercion not shown | Plea involuntariness not established; no withdrawal warranted |
| Whether jail credit or its absence was correctly determined | Parolee on parole should receive jail credit under MCL 769.11b | Parolee continues to serve prior sentence; jail credit not applicable | No jail credit; parolees remain in custody toward prior sentence under Idziak |
| Whether the sentence within guidelines is disproportionate | Minimum sentence within guidelines may still be disproportionate | Sentence falls within guidelines and is not disproportionate in light of habitual offender status | Minimum within guidelines; no disproportionate sentence found |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Hill, 269 Mich App 505 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard; de novo review for statutory scope; binding over decisions)
- People v Hill, 486 Mich 658 (2010) (overruled in part on other grounds; sentencing and statutory interpretation context)
- People v McCuller, 479 Mich 672 (2007) (disallows Blakely/Apprendi challenges to sentencing under Michigan law)