People v. Jackson (On Reconsideration)
313 Mich. App. 409
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On July 4, 2012, Traci Brown’s home in Charlotte, MI was burglarized; numerous electronics, cash ($5,500), and other items were taken. Neighbors observed a Black male carrying items between Brown’s and the next-door house (Hotchkiss residence).
- Defendant Kevin Jackson was seen by Hotchkiss’s housemates (Pion and Waycaster) coming and going, bringing in stolen items; both later identified Jackson and testified he said he would “hit a lick.”
- Pion and Waycaster entered plea agreements reducing felony charges to misdemeanors in exchange for testimony implicating Jackson; some of the stolen property was found at the Hotchkiss residence.
- Jackson presented an alibi witness who said Jackson was at a baseball game and later at a lakeside outing the day of the burglary; Jackson was convicted by a jury of second-degree home invasion and sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to 88 months–22 years (credit for 259 days).
- On appeal Jackson raised multiple claims: improper lesser-offense jury instruction (third-degree), prosecutorial error (vouching and an unreported threatening text), Sixth Amendment fair cross-section challenge to the jury, ineffective assistance of counsel, and Lockridge-related sentencing error (OV 13 and OV 16 scoring).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving a third-degree home-invasion instruction was error | Trial court properly instructed; instruction was requested and approved by defense | Instruction confused standards and lowered burden for second-degree conviction | Waived by defense request/approval; even if error, it benefited defendant and did not affect substantial rights — no reversal |
| Prosecutorial error: vouching for Pion/Waycaster and eliciting Hotchkiss’s reference to an unreported threatening text | Prosecutor’s comments were response to defense attacks and referenced plea obligations; the text testimony was unresponsive and not solicited as substantive evidence | Prosecutor vouched, argued facts not in evidence, and relied on an unverified text | No plain error: remarks were proper response to credibility attacks, plea status disclosed, and the text reference was unresponsive testimony that did not prejudice defendant |
| Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claim against jury composition and Batson-style challenge | Jury selection lawful; defendant failed to establish a prima facie disparate or systematic exclusion | Jury was not representative (too white, educated, law-enforcement ties) and prosecutor used peremptories to exclude Black juror(s) | No plain error: defendant produced no record evidence on venire composition or systematic exclusion; Batson claim not preserved and record inadequate |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to jury composition/prosecutor statements and not investigating the text message | Counsel made reasonable strategic choices; no factual predicate showing prejudice | Counsel failed to object and investigate, which prejudiced defense | No merit: claims fail on record-based review—strategy presumption, no showing counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial |
| Sentencing under Lockridge: whether OV 13 and OV 16 findings required remand | OV 13 points were supported by defendant’s admitted prior home-invasion convictions; OV 16 (value of stolen property) was not jury-found or admitted but removing it does not change guidelines cell | Judicial fact-finding at sentencing (OV scoring) increased minimum range and requires remand under Lockridge | No remand required: OV 13 was based on admitted convictions (satisfying Lockridge threshold); subtracting OV 16 points would not change the defendant’s guidelines range, so no plain error requiring resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wilder, 485 Mich. 35 (2010) (analyzed when lesser offense elements are subsumed in greater offense)
- People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335 (2002) (instruction on necessarily included lesser offense requires a rational view of the evidence)
- People v. Chapo, 283 Mich. App. 360 (2009) (defendant waives instructional error by counsel’s approval)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Bryant, 491 Mich. 575 (2012) (framework for fair-cross-section jury challenge)
- People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (1995) (limits on prosecutor vouching and use of plea agreements in argument)
- People v. Sands, 261 Mich. App. 158 (2004) (construction of home-invasion statutes regarding misdemeanor/felony predicate larceny)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (admission of prior convictions satisfies sentencing-enhancement notice/jury-trial concerns)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (treatment of prior convictions in sentencing enhancements)
- People v. Hoag, 460 Mich. 1 (1999) (ineffective-assistance principles and burden to show prejudice)
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (2013) (OV scoring review standard)