People v Sours
315 Mich. App. 346
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jerald Sours pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to 47 months to 15 years, to run consecutive to parole.
- At sentencing the trial court scored OV 19 at 10 points for "interfering with the administration of justice," based on Sours’ contemporaneous parole violation.
- Sours moved to correct an invalid sentence, arguing OV 19 should be scored 0 because the parole violation did not relate to the methamphetamine offense.
- The trial court treated the motion as one for resentencing but refused to change the score; Sours appealed by leave granted.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and factual findings for clear error.
- The Court held OV 19 was improperly scored 10 points because only conduct related to the sentencing offense may be considered; the parole violation did not hinder investigation or prosecution of the methamphetamine offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OV 19 may be scored 10 points for conduct unrelated to the sentencing offense | OV 19 properly scored because defendant’s parole status reflected interference with justice | OV 19 should be 0 because the parole violation did not impede investigation/prosecution of the possession offense | OV 19 must be scored only for conduct related to the sentencing offense; 10 points was improper and OV 19 = 0 |
| Whether the scoring error requires resentencing | Scoring supported trial court’s discretion; departure comment suggested same sentence might have been imposed | Erroneous guidelines range entitles defendant to resentencing | Remand for resentencing; original minimum (47 months) exceeded corrected guidelines range |
| Whether judicial fact-finding in OV scoring raises Lockridge constitutional issue | Trial court’s fact-finding could implicate Lockridge | Defendant argued scoring involved unconstitutional judicial fact-finding | Moot after correcting OV 19 score; Court did not address Lockridge issue |
| Whether conduct inherent to the offense can justify OV 19 scoring | OV 19 can be scored when offense inherently interferes with justice | Here possession is not inherently interfering; parole violation unrelated | OV 19 not applicable because possession of methamphetamine does not inherently interfere with administration of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120 (holds OV scoring limited to conduct related to the sentencing offense)
- People v Sargent, 481 Mich 346 (same principle: only conduct related to sentencing offense may be considered)
- People v Barbee, 470 Mich 283 (scoring OV 19 affirmed where defendant gave false name to impede investigation)
- People v Smith, 488 Mich 193 (OV 19 proper where defendant threatened witness to stop cooperation after the underlying crime)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (resentencing required when sentence is based on inaccurately calculated guidelines)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (advisory guidelines remedying mandatory-sentencing constitutional issue)
- People v Hershey, 303 Mich App 330 (definition of "interfere with the administration of justice" for OV 19)
- People v Underwood, 278 Mich App 334 (OV 19 may be scored when the offense itself inherently interferes with administration of justice)
- People v Morson, 471 Mich 248 (standard of review for guideline interpretation)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (review standards: factual determinations vs. statutory interpretation)