Be Careful What You Ask For...

-
Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided that a retroactive application of the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in People v Lockeridge, 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), did not violate the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions, even though the defendant was sentenced to a lengthier term of incarceration when his case was remanded for resentencing.

 In People v Steven Aderrick Odom, Docket No. 339027, March 12, 2019 (Meter, PJ), the defendant had previously appealed his 210 to 420-month sentence for armed robbery, claiming that the trial court engaged in judicial fact-finding to increase the then mandatory sentencing guideline range.  The Supreme Court ultimately agreed and ordered the defendant to be resentenced pursuant the reasoning followed in United States v Crosby, 397 F3d 103, 117-118 (CA 2, 2005). 

 Back in the trial court, the judge determined that he had been constrained by the mandatory nature of the guidelines and would have imposed a materially different sentence.  The trial court ordered resentencing.  At the same time, the court stated that it did not feel that the original sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of Odom's conduct and that a sentence outside of the guideline range was likely.  Understandably, Odom moved to withdraw his request for resentencing.  In addition, he moved for the appointment of new counsel.  His request for new counsel was granted, but not so his other request.  At resentencing, the trial court upped the sentence to 360 to 720 months.  

 Odom appealed, claiming his original attorney was ineffective for failing to advise him that a possible result of a request for resentencing is that the judge could impose a higher sentence and that the imposition of the higher sentence was per se vindictiveness and, therefore, an invalid sentence.  Odom also challenged the lengthier sentence on ex post facto grounds.

 As to vindictiveness, the Court held that, because a request for resentencing under Lockeridge places the case in the posture of a de novo sentencing, "starting anew," no presumption of vindictiveness exists.  As to the ex post facto challenge, the Court found no merit.  The bar against punishing a person for conduct that was innocent at the time he committed it rests on the core principles of notice, foreseeability, and, in particular, the right to fair warning.  "Our Supreme Court’s decision to rectify the constitutional infirmity in the mandatory sentencing guidelines by making the guidelines advisory did not alter the maximum penalty applicable to defendant when he committed the crimes at issue. Both offenses were punishable by up to life in prison when committed and remain punishable by up to life in prison under the advisory guidelines."  Therefore, no ex post facto violation occurred here and the Court affirmed the defendant's increased sentence.

 The trial court judge was the Honorable Archie C. Brown.  The defendant was represented by Ann Prater of Charlotte, Michigan.  Fawn Montgomery of the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office represented the People.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MSC Rules Duress Defense Applies to 2d Degree Murder Car Crash

-
Image
  Yesterday, in a 4-3 decision with a concurrence and two dissenting opinions, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that duress is an available defense to one form of 2d Degree Murder - willful and wanton disregard that the natural tendency of the act is to cause death or great bodily harm - often referred to as "depraved heart" murder. Justice Bridget McCormack , probably writing her final opinion as a member of the bench, was joined by Justices Bernstein, Cavanagh and Welch in the opinion in People v Gafken , Docket No.  161835 .  Theresa Gafken was convicted of second degree murder in the St. Clair County Circuit Court, MCL 750.317.  The evidence showed she drove her car, while running from the police, at speeds in excess of 100 MPH.   She ran a red light and collided with other vehicles, killing one person and severely injuring several others.  The prosecution's theory was that Gafken had intended to do an act that was in willful and wanton disregard of the likelihood of
Read more

Warrant Needed for a Barn Outside the Curtilage?

-
Image
Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v Brigitte Louise Rousse, Docket No. 358358 (May 5, 2022) , an opinion that held police, with an otherwise valid search warrant, lacked the authority to search the interior of a pole barn located outside the curtilage of the home. An animal control officer discovered a cow loose on the road near the Defendant's home.  Upon returning the cow to its pen, he observed numerous dead animals on the property in various states of decomposition.  He saw three dogs on the property that were emaciated. The Defendant had no explanation for how the animals died.  From one of the pole barns that could be observed from the road and the house, he heard the yipping of dogs.  The officer obtained a search warrant for the property.  However, in the description of the place to be searched, the officer listed only the description of the house, making no mention of the pole barns on the property.  A search of one of the pole barns rev
Read more

My Interview with Justice Maura Corrigan

-
Image
I noticed that the Court of Appeals has issued two published opinions this week dealing with criminal law, but before I post those to our blog, I wanted to alert everyone to a new feature we will be offering to our readers. Today, I am launching a new podcast called "Assistance of Counsel." By following the link here and to the right, you will be able to listen to an exclusive interview I recently had with Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan. Justice Corrigan was gracious enough to sit down with me and discuss various topics dealing with her career, her personal life, the day-to-day operations of the Michigan Supreme Court and the history of the court. Justice Corrigan has been on the Supreme Court since 1999, and the interview is very informative for anyone interested in the inner workings of the Court and Justice Corrigan in particular. Our new podcast offering will be an added feature linked to our blog and to our website, www.floodlaw.com. Soon, as well, our podcast
Read more