People v. Laidler
291 Mich. App. 199
Mich. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant was convicted by jury of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2).
- Initial sentence: 110 months to 20 years; later resentenced to 48 months to 20 years after_grid error was found.
- Appeals consolidated; conviction affirmed, remanded for resentencing.
- During trial, defense challenged prosecutor’s closing argument as improper; court found no plain error or ineffective assistance.
- Disputed OV 3 scoring: 100 points argued for victim death; trial court treated Holmes as a victim.
- Court held Holmes was not a victim under OV 3; scoring error required resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s closing arguments improper? | Bahoda violation alleged; prosecutor vouched for credibility. | Prosecutor impermissibly expressed personal belief in guilt. | No plain error; arguments were within permissible scope. |
| OV 3 scoring for death of co-felon, Holmes? | Holmes is a victim under OV 3, supporting 100-point score. | Holmes not a victim; OV 3 not triggered by death of non-victim. | Holmes not a victim; OV 3 inapplicable; resentencing required for correct guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (1995) (prosecutor improper behavior and personal belief issues in closing arguments)
- People v. Albers, 258 Mich. App. 578 (2003) (OV 3 victim = any person harmed by charged party; defines victim)
- People v. Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (2006) (remand for resentencing when OV scoring affects guidelines range)
- People v. Cannon, 481 Mich. 152 (2008) (de novo review on sentencing guideline questions; interpretation of OV)
- People v. Matuszak, 263 Mich. App. 42 (2004) (ineffective assistance standards; meritless objections)