People v. Biddles
316 Mich. App. 148
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant and co-defendant (Johnson) were tried for a shooting that killed Timothy Kirby; defendant was acquitted of murder and related charges but convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 76–156 months.
- Co-defendant Johnson pleaded guilty mid-trial and testified for defendant; jury convicted defendant only of felon-in-possession based on testimony someone in a white shirt (defendant) was observed holding a gun after the shooting.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) judicial misconduct by the trial judge during defense cross-examination deprived him of a fair trial, and (2) sentencing errors: evidentiary insufficiency for scoring OVs 1, 3, 4, and 9 and a Lockridge (constitutional) challenge to judicial fact-finding increasing the mandatory guidelines range; also raised ineffective assistance for waiving an OV 1 challenge.
- The trial court repeatedly interrupted defense counsel during cross-examination and made jocular/frustrated remarks; the judge instructed jurors that her comments were not evidence.
- The trial court scored OV 3 at 100 points (victim killed), OV 1 at 25, OV 4 at 10, and OV 9 at 10, for a total OV score of 155 (OV Level VI) combined with PRV placed defendant in the E–VI cell; the majority found OV 3, OV 1, OV 4, and OV 9 were improperly scored as to the sentencing offense.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing because OV 3 was clearly erroneously scored and that error altered the minimum guidelines range; Lockridge issues rendered moot by resentencing remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial misconduct by trial judge | Judge’s interruptions and remarks created appearance of bias and influenced jury | Judge’s conduct was reasonable courtroom control; remarks were isolated and jurors were instructed to disregard judge’s comments | No reversible error; judge did not pierce veil of impartiality; conviction affirmed |
| Evidentiary sufficiency of OV 3 (100 points for death) | OV 3 properly scored because a death occurred and co-defendant’s plea supported multiple-offender scoring | Defendant’s felon-in-possession conduct did not factually cause the death; multiple-offender provision not applicable because convictions differed | OV 3 clearly erroneous as scored against defendant; 100 points improper; sentencing vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Evidentiary sufficiency of OVs 1, 4, 9 | (Prosecution) Facts and surrounding incident justified respective OV scores | Defendant: his possession conviction did not involve discharging the weapon or placing victims in danger or causing serious psychological injury tied to the sentencing offense | OVs 1, 4, and 9 were improperly scored relative to the sentencing offense; OV 1 waiver at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance; remand for resentencing to correct OV scoring |
| Lockridge (judicial fact-finding & Crosby remand) | Defendant sought Crosby/Lockridge relief because judge-found facts increased mandatory minimum range | Majority: resolve evidentiary challenge first; successful evidentiary remedy (resentencing) renders Lockridge challenge moot; judicial fact-finding is permissible now that guidelines are advisory | Because OV 3 error mandates resentencing, Lockridge constitutional challenge is moot here; resentencing must follow Lockridge principles (advisory guidelines) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (Supreme Court) (held mandatory use of judge-found facts to increase mandatory minimum guidelines violated Sixth Amendment; made guidelines advisory and described Crosby remand procedure)
- People v Laidler, 491 Mich 339 (Supreme Court) (OV 3 requires defendant’s criminal actions be a factual cause of death)
- People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120 (Supreme Court) (OVs are scored by reference only to the sentencing offense)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (Supreme Court) (standard for appellate review of OV factual findings — preponderance and clear error)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (Supreme Court) (resentencing required if scoring error alters minimum guidelines range)
- People v Sours, 315 Mich App 346 (Court of Appeals) (addressed evidentiary OV challenge first, then Lockridge; resentencing rendered Lockridge issue moot)
- People v Stevens, 498 Mich 162 (Supreme Court) (standard for reviewing judicial misconduct and impartiality)
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.) (describes remand procedure used in Lockridge context)