In People v. Stokes, No. 321303, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that courts should follow the same procedure for resentencing for both unpreserved claims of error and preserved claims of error based on the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Lockridge, ___ Mich.____(2015). A jury convicted the defendant of carjacking and armed robbery, and he was sentenced to 18 to 30 years in prison as a second habitual offender. The jury acquitted him of firearms offenses, but the trial court assigned Offense Variables (OVs) 1 and 2 as if the defendant possessed a pistol and pointed it at the victim.
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that since the assignment of OVs 1 and 2 increased the minimum sentencing range from 108 to 126 months, the trial court increased the minimum sentence based on judicially-found facts in violation of the Michigan Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Lockridge. The defendant raised the issue in the trial court, so his claim of error was preserved. The Court of Appeals held that, in cases of preserved error, courts should follow the same remand procedure that the Michigan Supreme Court followed for an unpreserved claim of error in Lockridge. Under the procedure, the case is remanded to the trial court, where the defendant has an opportunity to inform the court that he or she will not seek resentencing, because some offenders could receive a more severe sentence on resentencing now that the sentencing guidelines are discretionary. The trial court then decides whether its sentence would change if it had known the guidelines were advisory, and resentences if necessary.
The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the verdict must be overturned because a juror conducted an experiment at home, attempting to recreate the crime by pointing his own gun in a mirror. The court noted that the juror did not share information about this experiment with the rest of the jury and that no extraneous facts or testimony reached the juror. The court also rejected the defendant’s claim that the prosecution withheld his cellphone, noting that no credible allegations of prejudice were made.
