People v. Bowling
299 Mich. App. 552
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to first-degree home invasion, resisting and obstructing, and second-degree murder, following a plea deal in which the first-degree murder charge was dismissed.
- He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 50–100 years (home invasion), 3–15 years (resisting/obstructing), and 100–150 years (second-degree murder).
- Police observed defendant and his brother planning and executing a home invasion at Glenwood Drive; during the incident, shots were fired and Officer Nehasil was killed.
- Defendant admitted involvement in past home invasions and gun trafficking, though he claimed he did not see his brother with a gun during Nehasil’s murder.
- Defendant challenged the sentences as cruel or unusual, plus claims of miscalculation of guidelines and restitution; the court affirmed convictions and sentences but remanded for administrative corrections.
- The remand tasks included correcting the judgment of sentence (to reflect 3–15 years for resisting/obstructing) and adjusting restitution by 10 cents (from $5,890.33 to $5,890.23).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cruel or unusual punishment valid? | Defendant | Defendant argues sentence is excessive given age and life-term exposure | No reversal; sentences within guidelines and proportionate given conduct and record |
| OV 6 and OV 9 scoring proper? | People | Defendant contends OV 6 and OV 9 were mis-scored | Court affirms scoring; no resentencing required as range unchanged |
| Restitution amount proper? | People | Defendant challenges amounts in presentence report | Restitution affirmed; remand to correct $5,890.33 to $5,890.23 and fix clerical error |
| Judgment of sentence and clerical errors? | People | N/A | Remand for administrative corrections to judgment of sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment framework; proportionality for serious crimes)
- People v. Brown, 294 Mich App 377 (2011) (proportionality within Guidelines; comparison across crimes/states)
- People v. Powell, 278 Mich App 318 (2008) (presumptive proportionality for within-guidelines sentences)
- People v. Lee, 243 Mich App 163 (2000) (unusual circumstances required to overcome presumptive proportionate sentence)
- People v. Merriweather, 447 Mich 799 (1994) (parole expectations not guaranteed; legislative intent discussed)
- People v. McGraw, 484 Mich 120 (2009) (scoring OV 9 and proper consideration of the offense facts)
- People v. Gahan, 456 Mich 264 (1997) (restitution and presentence report considerations; evidentiary procedures)
- People v. Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006) (guidelines scoring accuracy and effect on range)