People v. Jones
297 Mich. App. 80
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jones appeals his convictions for two counts of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, and multiple offenses including carjacking, fleeing/eluding, felonious driving, resisting/obstructing, failure to stop, suspended license, and marijuana possession.
- Sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to lengthy terms for several offenses; some sentences tied to prior served time.
- Issue preserved: the enhancement under MCL 769.11(1) depends on prior felony convictions, including a juvenile-adjudicated offense; the juvenile sentence logic is disputed.
- The carjacking conviction relied on amended statute 2009 PA 128; the court clarified that presence is no longer an element of the offense and that officer’s presence during initial larceny is not dispositive.
- The court concluded the habitual-offender enhancement was proper because defendant had two prior felony convictions before the current offenses; the record supports the carjacking conviction with the amended statute.
- Juvenile disposition and related sentencing law were discussed, but the focus remained on whether the predicate convictions supported enhancement and whether evidence supported carjacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 769.11(1) enhancement valid given prior juvenile conviction | Jones argues juvenile-convicted offense cannot predicate enhancement | State contends prior convictions (including juvenile-adjudicated) satisfy statute | Enhanced sentence proper; prior convicts counted regardless of juvenile status. |
| Whether evidence supported carjacking under the amended statute | Defendant contends lack of officer presence undermines liability | Prosecution proves larceny with carjacking elements under amended statute | Sufficient evidence; officer presence not required by amended statute. |
| Whether officer’s attempted arrest and self-defense negate carjacking conviction | Claim officer attacked him; self-defense warranted | Officer was restraining suspect; not an unlawful attack | No reversible error; record supports carjacking under the statute; response to lawful arrest not justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305 (2004) (preservation of sentencing issues; plain-error standard applied when unpreserved)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for substantial rights in criminal trials)
- People v Weeder, 469 Mich 493 (2004) (statutory interpretation de novo; intent of Legislature)
- People v St John, 230 Mich App 644 (1998) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
- People v McIntire, 7 Mich App 133 (1967) (juvenile sentencing considerations (not dispositive))
- People v McGilmer, 95 Mich App 577 (1980) (juvenile sentencing issues; not directly on point)
- People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41 (2008) (statutory interpretation; legislative intent)
- Auto Serv Councils of Mich, Inc, 123 Mich App 774 (1983) (statutory language presumed intentional)