People v. Lopez
305 Mich. App. 686
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant convicted by jury of five offenses: armed robbery, assault with intent to rob while armed, felony-firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and carrying a concealed weapon; sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent 35–55 years for major counts plus 2 years consecutive for felony-firearm.
- Sentencing court scored guidelines based on the highest crime-class conviction (armed robbery, Class A / III-F) and imposed minimums in that range; did not separately score or apply Class E guidelines for the felon-in-possession and carrying-concealed-weapon convictions.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the court was required to score and apply guidelines for each conviction (lower-crime-class felonies) and justify any upward departure, (2) trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, and (3) the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
- Two eyewitnesses identified defendant at trial and in a lineup; testimony supported the robbery and related firearm allegations; parties stipulated defendant was a prohibited possessor.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed legal standards for guideline scoring (People v Babcock and related authority), ineffective-assistance claims (Strickland standard), and great-weight review, and affirmed the convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had to independently score/apply sentencing guidelines for each conviction when multiple concurrent sentences are imposed | N/A (prosecution defended sentence) | Trial court erred by using only the highest-class felony guidelines; lower-class felonies (Class E) should have been scored and could yield lower guideline ranges requiring justification for any upward departure | Court affirmed: under People v Mack and MCL 771.14(2)(e) presentence/guidelines are required for the highest crime class and separate scoring of lower concurrent felonies is not required when sentenced concurrently and statutory maximums aren’t exceeded |
| Whether imposed sentences exceeded statutory maximums given habitual-offender status | Prosecution: habitual-offender elevation makes the longer terms lawful | Defendant: lower-class felony sentences might be disproportionate or require separate guideline scoring | Held: statutory maxima not exceeded—habitual-offender status elevated five-year maxima and concurrent sentences were lawful |
| Whether trial or appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance | Prosecution: counsel’s performance was adequate; no prejudicial errors apparent | Defendant: counsel failed to investigate and raise issues (e.g., informant motive, police location) and appellate counsel omitted meritorious issues | Held: ineffective-assistance claim fails—defendant did not identify errors showing deficient performance or prejudice; appellate-claim inadequately developed and some issues cured by Standard 4 filing |
| Whether verdict was against the great weight of the evidence | N/A (prosecution defended verdict) | Defendant: eyewitness identifications and evidence were unreliable, warranting a new trial | Held: no plain error; eyewitness testimony was consistent and credible, so verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Babcock, 469 Mich. 247 (explains standards for sentencing factual findings and departures)
- People v McCuller, 479 Mich. 672 (sentencing guidelines affect minimum sentences; statutory law limits maximums)
- People v Mack, 265 Mich. App. 122 (holding that court need not separately score lower-class concurrent convictions when scoring highest crime-class conviction)
- People v Johnigan, 265 Mich. App. 463 (criticized Mack but legislative amendment later aligned statute with Mack)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v Matuszak, 263 Mich. App. 42 (preservation and review limits for ineffective-assistance claims)