People v. Collins
298 Mich. App. 458
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant was convicted by jury of multiple heroin and cocaine offenses and conspiracy, sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender, with concurrent 10–40 year terms.
- Court vacated the conviction for delivering 50 grams or more, but less than 450 grams of heroin because aggregation of small deliveries was improperly allowed.
- Largest single delivery shown at trial was 28 grams; no evidence of a single delivery meeting 50+ grams.
- The majority held the charged 50–450 gram heroin offense cannot be proven by aggregating isolated 0.5–28 gram deliveries.
- Other convictions for possession with intent to deliver under 50 grams and conspiracy to deliver/possess under 50 grams were affirmed.
- Remand for resentencing on the remaining convictions; no retention of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May separate small deliveries be aggregated to prove 50–450 g heroin? | Blocker deliveries aggregated to meet 50+ grams. | Multiple deliveries cannot be aggregated to reach 50+ grams. | Aggregation not permitted; conviction vacated. |
| Was the suppression of evidence properly decided? | Search valid; suppression inappropriate. | Officers acted outside jurisdiction; suppression required. | Suppression proper rejection; evidence admissible under framework used. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not investigating or severing count I? | Counsel failed to impeach Blocker and sever counts. | Severance and investigation would have altered outcome. | No ineffective assistance; arguments meritless. |
| Was there a Sixth Amendment violation when bond revocation occurred without counsel? | Right to counsel violated at bond revocation. | Constitutional error automatic reversal. | Not a critical stage; no automatic reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Williams, 294 Mich App 461 (2011) (amount and nature are elements; knowledge of amount not required)
- People v Mass, 464 Mich 615 (2001) (delivery requires transfer; amount is an element; knowledge not required)
- People v Schultz, 246 Mich App 695 (2001) (delivery is a single transfer; aggregation not supported by statute)
- People v Bartlett, 197 Mich App 15 (1992) (individual deliveries constitute separate transactions under double jeopardy analysis)
- People v Rodriguez, 251 Mich App 10 (2002) (continuing-conspiracy theory; aggregation of amounts in conspiracy context)