People v. Williams
294 Mich. App. 461
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant, while serving a 330-day domestic-violence sentence, traded marijuana for a candy bar with an inmate informant.
- Prosecution charged and convicted defendant of prisoner in possession of a controlled substance and delivery of marijuana.
- Sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to each other and to the DV sentence.
- Appellate counsel raised sufficiency of the evidence, consecutive sentencing, and double jeopardy issues in a Standard 4 brief.
- Court held the evidence sufficient and no double jeopardy violation; vacated and remanded to impose concurrent sentences between possession and delivery and to apply jail credit to both.
- Court also addressed jail credit, PRV 7 scoring, and related sentencing corrections on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy exists for possession and delivery? | Defendant contends dual convictions violate double jeopardy. | State argues offenses have distinct elements; Blockburger test applies. | No violation; offenses have separate elements; Blockburger satisfied. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for delivery and possession? | Prosecution showed marijuana via controlled buy and witness testimony. | Security footage inconclusive; cannot prove transfer directly. | Evidence sufficient to support both convictions; circumstantial evidence and inferences valid. |
| Consecutive versus concurrent sentencing for the two current offenses? | Consecutive sentencing possible under statute due to incarceration context. | Two contemporaneous offenses tried together should be concurrent. | Sentences for possession and delivery must run concurrently with each other (vacated); only consecutive to DV sentence preserved. |
| Jail credit properly applied to sentences? | Credit only applied to first sentence (possession) due to consecutive structuring. | Credit should apply to both sentences if run concurrently. | Jail credit should be applied to both sentences on remand. |
| PRV 7 scoring when sentences are concurrent? | Consecutive sentencing would affect concurrent/consecutive determination for PRV 7. | Challenge deemed unnecessary since remand changes sentencing structure. | PRV 7 scored at 10 points under the defendant’s analysis due to the corrected concurrent ordering. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Ream, 481 Mich 223 (2008) (double jeopardy review; de novo standard)
- People v Nutt, 469 Mich 565 (2004) (Blockburger test and multiple punishment analysis)
- People v Smith, 478 Mich 292 (2007) (multiple punishments; strict statutory interpretation guidance)
- People v Mass, 464 Mich 615 (2001) (elements differing support for separate offenses)
- People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549 (2009) (parole release and jail credit principles in related context)