People v. Heller
316 Mich. App. 314
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Trenity D. Heller pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine after a videoconferenced arraignment from the county jail; two other counts were dismissed per the plea agreement.
- The plea and arraignment were conducted via two-way interactive video; MCR 6.006 expressly permits video for arraignments and pleas.
- The trial court conducted Heller’s felony sentencing by videoconference while Heller remained in jail; defense counsel was physically present in court and raised no contemporaneous objection to Heller’s absence.
- Heller was not advised of an option to appear personally at sentencing nor offered a private opportunity to consult with counsel during the hearing; the presentence report had not been confirmed as received by Heller.
- The court sentenced Heller to 30–120 months, a substantial upward departure from the guidelines range of 0–17 months, citing offense history, manufacture involvement, and persistent drug abuse.
- The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and concluded sentencing by videoconference violated MCR 6.006 and warranted remand for resentencing at Heller’s option.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence length is reviewable under the post-Lockridge reasonableness standard | Court should uphold the departure as justified by offense history and aggravating facts | Heller argued the sentence was excessive and required reconsideration under Milbourn/Crosby following Lockridge | Court: Post-Lockridge, appellate review requires reasonableness review; remand for possible resentencing under Milbourn procedure (Crosby) unless defendant waives reconsideration |
| Whether use of two-way video for felony sentencing complied with court rules | Impliedly: videoconference was acceptable because it had been used for plea/arraignment | Heller argued sentencing by video violated MCR 6.006 because felony sentencing is not listed among permitted uses | Held: MCR 6.006 does not authorize two-way video for felony sentencing; video sentencing contravened the rule |
| Whether defendant’s physical presence at sentencing is constitutionally/peremptorily required | Prosecutor implied video was adequate and efficient | Heller argued sentencing is a critical, personal stage requiring physical presence and opportunity to allocute and confer privately with counsel | Held: Sentencing is an intensely personal stage; physical presence is required for felony sentencing—video is an inadequate substitute |
| Remedy for improper videoconferenced sentencing | Court could leave sentence if procedurally valid | Heller sought relief (resentencing) | Held: Remand for resentencing at Heller’s option; jurisdiction not retained by the Court of Appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (establishing appellate reasonableness review for guidelines departures)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (articulating proportionality analysis for sentencing)
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (remand procedure for resentencing after a changed sentencing standard)
- People v Mallory, 421 Mich 229 (defendant’s constitutional right to be present at critical stages)
- People v Triplett, 407 Mich 510 (emphasis on individualized sentencing and defendant dignity)
- United States v Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (noting gravity of punishment and importance of presence during sentencing)