People v. Lockett
295 Mich. App. 165
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant Ashanti Bryant Lockett and codefendant Tadarius Rashard Johnson were tried together by separate juries for CSC-I under MCL 750.520b(l)(c) and for accosting a minor, with Johnson also charged for CSC-I under MCL 750.520b(l)(a).
- The victims were S. (age 17) and J. (age 12) in a van at a park; S. and Johnson and Lockett engaged in sexual activity in view of J., who was present in the vehicle.
- The trial court found a nexus between the sexual penetration and the underlying felony of disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor (J., age 12) and charged CSC-I under MCL 750.520b(l)(c) for both defendants.
- Lockett was also sentenced under a fourth-offense habitual offender enhancement, while Johnson received concurrent prison terms for the charged CSC-I offenses.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the CSC-I convictions under MCL 750.520b(l)(c), and remanded for entry of convictions on the lesser included offense of disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor (MCL 722.675(l)(b)).
- The court upheld Johnson’s CSC-I under MCL 750.520b(l)(a) and Lockett’s accosting conviction; it remanded for resentencing and for adjusting the OV scoring errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of MCL 750.520b(l)(c) | Lockett/Johnson: statute is unconstitutionally vague and invites arbitrary enforcement. | Lockett/Johnson: the nexus between underlying felony and penetration is improperly required or too broadly applied. | Statute unconstitutionally vague as applied; CSC-I under (l)(c) reversed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor | Prosecution; there was evidence defendants exhibited to a minor a sexually explicit performance. | Defendants did not visibly exhibit to J.; not an exhibit. | Sufficient evidence; convictions on lesser included offense affirmed/reversed for remand |
| Sentencing guidelines OV scoring for Lockett | OV4, OV10, OV14 were properly scored per guidelines. | OV4 and OV14 improper; OV10 proper. | OV4 10 points improper; OV10 upheld; OV14 upheld; remand for recalculation |
| Accomplice instruction versus immunity instruction | Accomplice instruction should have been given to address credibility concerns. | Immunity instruction alone was sufficient and less confusing. | No abuse of discretion; instructions sufficient; no prejudicial impact shown; no ineffective-assistance finding |
| Johnson’s CSC-I conviction under MCL 750.520b(l)(a) (age under 13) | J.’s testimony supports penetration; sexual contact occurred. | J. denied penetration; not legally sufficient. | Sufficient evidence; Johnson convicted of penetration of a minor under 13 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Waltonen, 272 Mich App 678 (2006) (required nexus between underlying felony and penetration)
- People v Pettway, 94 Mich App 812 (1980) (victim of underlying felony also victim of penetration)
- People v Wilkens, 267 Mich App 728 (2005) (victims of underlying felony overlapped with sexual content)
- People v Bearss, 463 Mich 623 (2001) (rules on lesser included offenses when greater offense is reversed)
- People v Wilder, 485 Mich 35 (2010) (definition of lesser included offenses and leadership in multiple-offender contexts)
- People v Apgar, 264 Mich App 321 (2004) (leadership assessment in OV scoring)
- People v Hicks, 259 Mich App 518 (2003) (standard for clearly erroneous scoring of sentencing variables)
- People v Jackson, 487 Mich 783 (2010) (statutory construction read as a whole)
- People v Gagnon, 129 Mich App 678 (1983) (read statute as a whole to avoid unconstitutional construction)