PEOPLE v. DeLEON
317 Mich. App. 714
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Joe Louis Deleon lived with and later married the victim’s mother; the victim testified he sexually abused her repeatedly from about age 6–7 until 12.
- Jury convicted Deleon of CSC-I (victim under 13, defendant ≥17) and CSC-II; acquitted on a second CSC-I count.
- Trial court adjudicated Deleon a third habitual offender and sentenced him to consecutive terms: 35–70 years (CSC-I) consecutive to 20–30 years (CSC-II).
- Prosecution sought consecutive sentences under MCL 750.520b(3) (allows consecutive term when offenses arise from the same transaction).
- On appeal Deleon challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for the CSC‑II conviction and (2) the imposition of consecutive sentences as violating the Sixth Amendment under People v Lockridge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for CSC‑II (sexual contact with victim under 13) | Victim’s detailed testimony alone suffices to prove intentional sexual contact and supports CSC‑II conviction | Insufficient evidence to prove the sexual‑contact element of CSC‑II | Affirmed: Victim’s testimony (touching with hands, fingers, penis; inner thigh, groin, buttock) was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution |
| Whether judge‑found facts used to impose consecutive sentences violated the Sixth Amendment post‑Lockridge | State: consecutive sentencing under MCL 750.520b(3) is permissible and judge may find facts necessary to order consecutive terms; Ice controls | Deleon: trial court used judicial fact‑finding to determine the offenses arose from the same transaction, which increases punishment and therefore required jury finding under Lockridge/Apprendi/Alleyne | Affirmed: U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon v. Ice permits judge‑imposed consecutive sentences; Ice’s historical/sovereignty rationale distinguishes this from Lockridge; no Sixth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact other than prior conviction that increases maximum penalty must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements for jury determination)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Sixth Amendment does not prohibit judicial fact‑finding to impose consecutive sentences)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015) (Michigan sentencing guidelines cannot rely on judge‑found facts to increase the floor of the guidelines range)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain‑error forfeiture standard)
- United States v. White, 240 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2001) (Apprendi does not affect judge‑imposed consecutive sentences where individual counts’ maxima are not exceeded)
- United States v. Le, 256 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2001) (Apprendi inapplicable when consecutive sentences do not exceed statutory maximums for individual offenses)
- United States v. Garcia, 754 F.3d 460 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court may find facts supporting consecutive sentences by preponderance so long as they do not affect statutory max or min)