People v. Harverson
291 Mich. App. 171
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- On March 14, 2008, UPS delivered a cell phone to Kiara Anderson at the women’s apartment; Kenneth Conliffe thought Anderson was involved in theft of a phone.
- Conliffe threw the phone in a stream; later received a ride home from his mother and stepfather.
- Defendant Murray, Anderson, and Jovanta Jackson allegedly accosted Conliffe in his driveway, accused him of stealing the phone, removed Conliffe’s sunglasses at gunpoint, and drove away with the phone.
- Anderson testified they went to scare Conliffe into returning the phone; Jackson pulled a gun and later passed it to Murray; Murray claimed he snatched Conliffe’s glasses but did not have a gun and refused to have Conliffe “run his pockets.”
- Police later stopped the suspects’ car; Conliffe’s glasses and ammunition were found in the car; the gun was recovered the following day in the neighborhood.
- Murray was tried for armed robbery but convicted of unarmed robbery; the appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence and sentencing scoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for unarmed robbery | Murray argues the evidence did not show intent to permanently deprive. | Murray contends the intent element was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence supported intent to deprive and the conviction affirmed. |
| OV 13 scoring (juvenile adjudications) | OV 13 correctly scored at 10 points for ongoing criminal activity. | Juvenile adjudications should not support OV 13 scoring. | OV 13 properly scored; juvenile adjudications count as criminal activity for purposes of OV 13. |
| OV 9 scoring (two or more victims) | Credit 10 points for multiple victims who were placed in danger. | Only Conliffe was a victim; OV 9 should be zero. | OV 9 properly scored at 10 points due to danger to others present at the scene. |
| OV 1 and OV 2 scoring (firearm-related enhancements) | Firearm was pointed at the victim and defendant possessed a pistol; these justify OV 1 and OV 2 points. | There was no conviction for possessing or pointing a firearm toward the victim, and no other offender was scored for weapons. | OV 1 and OV 2 properly scored; gun was pointed at Conliffe and evidence showed possession. |
| Blakely challenge to sentencing | Michigan’s indeterminate sentencing scheme remains valid post-Blakely. | Blakely requires different considerations for sentencing. | Blakely challenge rejected; framework consistent with Michigan Supreme Court precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 460 Mich 720 (1999) (sufficiency review standard; beyond reasonable doubt)
- People v. Tombs, 472 Mich 446 (2005) (de novo review for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Wolfe, 440 Mich 508 (1992) (standard for sufficiency; reliance on circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439 (2001) (de novo sufficiency considerations)
- People v. King, 210 Mich App 425 (1995) (intent elements in robbery offenses)
- People v. Dupie, 395 Mich 483 (1975) (intent to permanently deprive; specific intent crime)
- People v. Strong, 143 Mich App 442 (1985) (minimal circumstantial evidence suffices for intent)
- People v. Fletcher, 260 Mich App 531 (2004) (credibility determinations for witness testimony)
- People v. Ratkov, 201 Mich App 123 (1993) (considering presentence information in guideline calculation)
- People v. McGraw, 484 Mich 120 (2009) (guideline scoring considerations; multiple factors)
- People v. Sargent, 481 Mich 346 (2008) (victims and danger at scene; multiple persons considered for OV 9)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Applies to sentencing scenarios; structural implications)
- United States v. Singleton, 702 F.2d 1182 (1983) (independent sufficiency review; de novo posture)
- United States v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817 (2006) (interpretation of sufficiency standards; appellate deference)