PEOPLE v. McCHESTER
310 Mich. App. 354
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Kristopher K. McChester pleaded nolo contendere to unarmed robbery and was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to an 87-month minimum term.
- At the robbery, defendant acted as if he had a gun and threatened the cashier, who emptied the register and fled; police reported the cashier was "visibly shaken."
- The trial court scored Offense Variable (OV) 4 (psychological injury) at 10 points, increasing the guidelines range; defendant did not object at sentencing but later raised the issue on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court.
- The record contains no victim impact statement, therapy records, testimony, or other evidence showing lasting or serious psychological injury beyond the police observation.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether 10 points for OV 4 were supported by a preponderance of the evidence and whether resentencing was required if OV 4 should have been scored at zero.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OV 4 was properly scored at 10 points for "serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment" | Prosecution: victim’s visible shaking and the threatening conduct supported a 10-point score | McChester: record lacks evidence of serious, lasting injury or need for professional treatment; score should be 0 | Court: OV 4 improperly scored; record does not preponderantly show serious psychological injury—score should be 0; reversed and remanded for resentencing |
| Preservation and review standard for OV scoring | Prosecution: scoring not challenged at sentencing, so should be forfeited | McChester: issue preserved via motions to remand; review permitted | Court: defendant preserved issue via motions to remand; reviewed on the merits under preponderance/clear-error standards |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (sentencing error/reversal when guidelines range affected)
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (standards for reviewing and interpreting offense-variable language)
- People v. Apgar, 264 Mich. App. 321 (OV 4 upheld where victim testified to severe fear in a brutal assault)
- People v. Johnson, 298 Mich. App. 128 (courts may consider PSIR, plea admissions, and preliminary exam testimony for OV scoring)
- People v. Earl, 297 Mich. App. 104 (OV 4 supported where victim impact statements documented ongoing psychological harm)