People v. Stevens
306 Mich. App. 620
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH) after a jury trial.
- He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 7 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- The stabbing occurred March 7, 2012; Allbright was the victim; Williams and Castillo were present earlier.
- Defendant admitted bringing a knife and stabbing Allbright but claimed self-defense; trial court instructed on self-defense.
- Appellant argues PRV 5 scoring error and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; the prosecution concedes some PRV 5 scoring error.
- Court affirms conviction, upholds weapon and self-defense conclusions, and addresses PRV 5 scoring, finding no resentencing required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRV 5 scoring accuracy of prior misdemeanors | People argues 15-point PRV 5 score proper; defense contends 10 points. | Defendant contends only four offenses countable as PRV 5 offenses, yielding 10 points. | PRV 5 should be 15; no resentencing required because range unchanged. |
| Whether drug paraphernalia misdemeanors qualify as controlled substance offenses for PRV 5 | People asserts paraphernalia offenses countable under PRV 5 as controlled substance offenses. | Defendant argues paraphernalia offenses should not count as controlled substance offenses. | Yes; paraphernalia offenses count as controlled substance offenses under Article 7, Endres applied. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for AWIGBH | People contends evidence shows intent to cause serious injury; defendant acted with knife. | Defendant claims lack of intent and possible self-defense. | Evidence sufficient to establish intent to cause serious injury; conviction supported. |
| Self-defense adequacy and its impact on conviction | People argues prosecution disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. | Defendant maintains self-defense was not credibly disproven. | Prosecution satisfied burden; self-defense rejected beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Effect of potential PRV 5 error on resentencing and counsel effectiveness | People concedes some PRV 5 error but argues no resentencing due to range. | Defendant argues error could require resentencing and challenges counsel on objection. | No ineffective assistance; resentencing not required since range remains unchanged. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Endres, 269 Mich App 414 (2006) (defines 'controlled substance' for PRV 5 by Public Health Code Article 7)
- People v. Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006) (recognizes that PRV errors not altering guidelines don't require resentencing)
- People v. Dupree, 486 Mich 693 (2010) (discusses burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Loper, 299 Mich App 451 (2013) (plain-error review for preserved challenges to sentencing factors)
- People v. Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594 (2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and witness credibility)
- People v. Parcha, 227 Mich App 236 (1997) (intent to cause serious harm may be inferred from circumstances)
- People v. Cunningham, 21 Mich App 381 (1970) (intent required for AWIGBH and use of weapon as evidence)
- People v. Harrington, 194 Mich App 424 (1992) (injuries may indicate defendant’s intent; not element, but evidentiary weight)
- People v. Thomas, 260 Mich App 450 (2004) (counsel ineffective assistance analysis when objections would be futile)