People v. Norfleet
317 Mich. App. 649
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Ronald Norfleet was convicted of multiple heroin offenses (three deliveries, possession with intent to deliver, conspiracy, maintaining a drug house, and maintaining a drug vehicle) based on controlled buys, witness testimony, and recovered buy funds.
- Police observed deliveries, conducted a traffic stop and controlled buy, and executed warrants at the defendant’s residence and the Nergs’ motel; heroin was recovered at the motel but not at defendant’s home.
- Testimony linked defendant to directing deliveries and exercising control over drug proceeds; an ex-girlfriend gave testimony implicating defendant and later signed an affidavit recanting parts of her testimony.
- Defendant was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to multiple top-range guideline terms; five 134-month-to-40-year terms were ordered consecutively, producing parole eligibility after ~55 years.
- On appeal, convictions were affirmed, but the Court remanded for sentencing proceedings because the trial court failed to articulate individualized reasons for each discretionary consecutive sentence, and for a Crosby remand under Lockridge regarding OV scoring; the Court also ordered removal of unsupported gang-affiliation statements from the PSIR unless proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent | Evidence (witnesses, controlled buy, buy funds) proves Norfleet’s dominion/control | No direct physical possession at defendant’s residence; insufficient nexus | Affirmed — constructive possession supported by totality of evidence |
| Jury instruction on "keep or maintain" (drug house/vehicle) | Instructions were adequate given the evidence | Missing Supreme Court definition (continuous use/substantial purpose) prejudiced defendant | Affirmed — any instructional deficiency was harmless because evidence supported conviction |
| Ineffective assistance (failure to move for mistrial over allegedly prejudicial phone statements) | Trial counsel should have moved for mistrial | Record shows those statements were not played in full; no Ginther hearing; no record error | Denied — no apparent record error to support claim |
| Discretionary consecutive sentences under MCL 333.7401(3) | Consecutive terms justified by offenses/defendant’s history | Trial court abused discretion by imposing multiple consecutives without particularized reasons | Remanded — abuse-of-discretion standard applies; trial court must articulate reasons for each consecutive term |
| Lockridge challenge / OV scoring (OV 12) | Judicial fact-finding inflated OV points, placing defendant at minimum of OV V | OV 12 scoring supported by witness testimony | Remanded (Crosby remand) — removal of OV12 points would lower defendant to OV IV; trial court must determine if it would have imposed a materially different sentence |
| Gang-affiliation statements in PSIR | Prosecutor established gang affiliation sufficiently for PSIR | Statements lack adequate evidentiary support and timeframe | Reversed as to those PSIR statements — must be removed unless proven by preponderance of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (abuse of discretion standard; multiple reasonable principled outcomes)
- People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (principle of proportionality in sentencing)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (mandatory guidelines violation; Crosby remand framework)
- People v. Broden, 428 Mich 343 (trial court must articulate reasons for sentencing decisions to aid appellate review)
- People v. Chambers, 430 Mich 217 (Michigan preference for concurrent sentences; consecutive sentencing is "strong medicine")
- People v. Kowalski, 489 Mich 488 (instructional error may be harmless where evidence independently supports conviction)