People v. Earl
297 Mich. App. 104
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of bank robbery and two narcotics offenses; sentenced as an habitual offender to concurrent terms of 10–40 years and 2–15 years for each drug conviction.
- Robbery occurred March 18, 2010; defendant wore a woman's clothing; teller, manager, and a bystander identified him; witnesses testified he sought getaway drivers.
- Arrest on March 24, 2010; crack cocaine and heroin found on defendant; he admitted narcotics offenses but denied the robbery; an alibi defense was presented.
- Defendant challenged a search of his fiancée’s vehicle, challenging the seizure of two reading glasses; the vehicle belonged to the fiancée, and defendant had no demonstrated possessory interest.
- The trial court scored OV 4 and OV 13; defendant preserved the issue via a remand motion; petitioner argues improper scoring but the court upheld the scores.
- A CVRA crime victim’s assessment of $130 was imposed; the issue was whether the increase from $60 to $130 violated ex post facto constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant had standing to challenge the eyeglasses seizure | Defendant lacked ownership/privacy interest in vehicle or glasses | Defendant had privacy interest by being a passenger and use of the vehicle | No standing; suppression affirmed no error |
| OV 4 scoring – serious psychological injury to victim | Teller's fear and subsequent sleep loss support 10 points | Insufficient link between conduct and injury to justify OV 4 | upheld; 10 points supported |
| OV 13 scoring – continuing pattern of criminal behavior including 2008 robbery | 2008 robbery case evidence supports 10 points | 2008 charge was dismissed; should not support OV 13 | upheld; evidence supported OV 13 score |
| CVRA crime victim’s assessment ($130) and ex post facto challenge | Increase in the assessment punishes defendant retroactively | CVRA assessment is punitive and retroactive | not ex post facto; CVRA assessment is remedial, not punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) ( Fourth Amendment exceptions and reasonableness of searches)
- People v Hyde, 285 Mich. App. 428 (2009) (standing in suppression motions; de novo review of ultimate decision)
- People v Powell, 235 Mich. App. 557 (1999) (standing when no property/possessory interest in vehicle)
- People v Matthews, 202 Mich. App. 175 (1993) (CVRA assessment not restitution; remedial, not punitive)
- People v Slocum, 213 Mich. App. 239 (1995) (ex post facto analysis of legislative remedies, not applying punishment)
- People v Lechleitner, 291 Mich. App. 56 (2010) (standard for reviewing sentencing guideline scoring)