People v. Bosca
310 Mich. App. 1
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Vincent Bosca was convicted after a jury trial of extortion, four counts of unlawful imprisonment, four counts of felonious assault, felony-firearm, manufacturing and delivering marijuana, and maintaining a drug house; he was sentenced to multi-year terms and SORA registration.
- The offenses arose from a June 13, 2011 incident in Sterling Heights where Bosca and two associates detained four teen boys in his basement, duct-taping them and threatening them with weapons after a prior marijuana theft at Bosca’s home.
- Police found weapons, a sword sheath, duct tape, and extensive marijuana cultivation in the home and garage; DNA on blood traces matched one of the boys; Bosca admitted to duct-taping the boys.
- Bosca claimed he was a licensed MMMA caregiver, and an expert testified the plants and material found fell within his licensed allotments, though there was dispute about compliance with licensure limits.
- After sentencing, Bosca challenged SORA registration, and the trial court allowed resentencing on that issue; this appeal addresses SORA and other trial issues, with the Court remanding for an amended judgment to conform to the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Bosca’s convictions are supported by substantial testimony and physical evidence. | Evidence was insufficient and witnesses were not credible. | Evidence supports the verdicts; no abuse of discretion on weight or sufficiency. |
| Applicability and constitutionality of SORA registration for a minor-victim unlawful imprisonment | SORA applies to listed offenses, including unlawful imprisonment of a minor, and registration is constitutional. | Registration under SORA for a non-sexual offense against a minor is unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied. | SORA applies to the listed offense and is not unconstitutional as applied; but legislative fixes are urged. |
| Prosecutorial error | Discovery and disclosure issues did not prejudice trial; no Brady violation. | Prosecutorial delays in discovery and handling of evidence violated due process. | No reversible prosecutorial error; decisions within prosecutorial discretion did not deprive Bosca of a fair trial. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance was sound and strategic; no prejudice shown. | Counsel was unprepared and failed to pursue or introduce key defenses and discovery material. | No ineffective assistance; trial strategy supported the decisions, and no prejudice shown. |
| Double jeopardy and joinder | Joinder and cumulative convictions did not violate double jeopardy under Blockburger. | Joint trial or overlapping charges could violate double jeopardy. | No double jeopardy violation; multiple offenses with distinct elements remain valid after joinder. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Harris, 495 Mich 120 (2014) (extortion element guidance and requisite malice standard)
- People v Lange, 251 Mich App 247 (2002) (weapons, whether an object is a weapon for OV purposes)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (great weight and credibility concerns; abuse of discretion standard)
- People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594 (2008) (sufficiency of circumstantial evidence; mind-state inference)
- People v Temelkoski, 307 Mich App 241 (2014) (SORA, non-punitive purpose; rational basis review)
- People v Fonville, 291 Mich App 363 (2011) (SORA applicability to non-sexual offenses and catch-all context)
- People v Lee, 288 Mich App 739 (2010) (SORA registration based on underlying conduct; later treatment by Supreme Court)
- People v Pennington, 240 Mich App 193 (2011) (SORA not punitive; registration as remedial regulatory scheme)