People v. Brantley
296 Mich. App. 546
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant convicted after jury trial of CSC-I (armed with a weapon) and larceny from the person; sentenced to 12–40 years and 4–10 years respectively, with lifetime electronic monitoring after release; victim was a 21-year-old adult assaulted in defendant’s car; weapon was a black folding knife found on defendant; semen evidence possible link to defendant; on appeal, convictions affirmed but sentences partly vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of CSC-I and larceny-from-the-person beyond reasonable doubt? | State argues sufficient evidence supported verdicts. | Defendant contends evidence and credibility issues do not support verdicts. | Yes; rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Was the CSC-I verdict against the great weight of the evidence? | State contends evidence supports credibility of victim. | Defendant asserts conflict in testimony warrants new trial. | No; weight of the evidence did not require a new trial. |
| Did the trial court improperly score OV 10 for CSC-I? | State argues OV 10 supported by domestic relationship. | Jamison requires removing OV 10 as domestic relationship absent dating/cohabitation. | OV 10 mis-scored; remand for resentencing. |
| Was lifetime electronic monitoring properly imposed for CSC-I? | State reads statute to mandate monitoring. | Plain language restricts monitoring to CSC-II or CSC-I with certain age/victim conditions. | Majority: CSC-I mandates monitoring regardless of ages under statute; dissent would vacate monitoring. |
| What is the proper remedy on remand? | Vacate CSC-I sentence and remand for resentencing with correct OV 10 scoring and amended judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192 (2010) (evidence sufficiency standard; defer to jury on credibility)
- People v Railer, 288 Mich App 213 (2010) (de novo review of sufficiency; circumstantial evidence permitted)
- People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465 (2010) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences allowed)
- People v Meshell, 265 Mich App 616 (2005) (jury’s role as fact-finder and credibility assessors)
- People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599 (2011) (credible witness evaluation guiding verdicts)
- People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625 (1998) (jury credibility and weight-of-the-evidence considerations)
- People v Jamison, 292 Mich App 440 (2011) (defines domestic relationship for OV 10 guidance)
- People v Kern, 288 Mich App 513 (2010) (statutory interpretation of lifetime electronic monitoring; deference to plain language)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006) (guidelines sentencing and corrective remand principles)