SADO and MAACS Attorneys to Argue Before Michigan Supreme Court at January Session
Arguments heard January 23-24, 2019
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT: CASES FOR ARGUMENT – JANUARY 2019
SADO and MAACS attorneys are schedule to argue before the Michigan Supreme Court at its session, January 23-24, 2019, in the following cases.
CALENDAR CASE
People v Joel Eusevio Davis, Docket No. 156406 (to be argued at the same session as Price, Docket No. 156180)
The Court granted leave to appeal to address (1) whether the defendant’s convictions under MCL 750.81a(3) and MCL 750.84 violate double jeopardy; (2) whether MCL 750.81a and MCL 750.84 contain contradictory and mutually exclusive provisions such that the Legislature did not intend a defendant to be convicted of both crimes for the same conduct; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in recognizing a rule against mutually exclusive verdicts in Michigan; and (4) whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying this rule to the facts of this case. Mr. Davis is represented by SADO’s Jacqueline McCann.
ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPLICATIONS
People v Dorian Lamarr Price, Docket No. 156180 (to be argued at the same session as Davis, Docket No. 156406)
The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the defendant’s convictions under MCL 750.82 and MCL 750.84 violate double jeopardy; (2) whether MCL 750.82 and MCL 750.84 contain contradictory and mutually exclusive provisions such that the Legislature did not intend a defendant to be convicted of both crimes for the same conduct; (3) whether the Court of Appeals in People v Davis, 320 Mich App 484 (2017), erred in recognizing a rule against mutually exclusive verdicts in Michigan; and (4) whether that rule is applicable to the facts of this case. Mr. Price is represented by SADO’s Douglas Baker.
People v Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, Docket No. 156746 (to be argued at the same session as Beck, Docket No. 152934)
People v Harold Lamont Walker, Docket No. 155198
The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial judge’s comments to the jury in lieu of the standard “deadlocked jury” instruction; (2) whether OV 19 was improperly assigned 10 points for interference with the administration of justice; and (3) if OV 19 was misscored, whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing before a different judge based on the judge’s verbal exchange with the defendant at sentencing. Mr. Walker is represented by SADO’s Adrienne Young.
People v David Ross Ames, Docket No. 156077
The Court directed the parties to address whether MCL 769.34(10) has been rendered invalid by the decision in Lockridge, to the extent that the statute requires the Court of Appeals to affirm sentences that fall within the applicable guidelines range “absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information relied upon in determining the defendant’s sentence.” Mr. Ames is represented by SADO’s Marilena David-Martin.
People v Kelli Marie Worth-McBride, Docket No. 156430 (to be argued at the same session as Lee, Docket No. 157176)
The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether a parent/defendant, either as a principal or as an aider and abettor, can be convicted of first-degree child abuse or second-degree murder when a child suffers serious physical harm or death as a result of the parent/defendant leaving the child in the care of the other parent with knowledge that the other parent previously injured the child and that serious physical harm or death would be caused by leaving the child with the other parent; and (2) if so, whether the evidence is sufficient in this case to establish the defendant’s knowledge that serious physical harm or death would be caused by leaving the child with the other parent. Ms. Worth-McBride is represented by SADO’s Christine Pagac.
People v James Lee, Docket No. 157176 (to be argued at the same session as Worth-McBride, Docket No. 156430)
On the prosecution’s application, the Court directed the parties to address whether there is sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed an “act,” as that term is used in MCL 750.136b(3)(b). Mr. Lee is represented by SADO’s Jason Eggert.
Find the Supreme Court’s case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties here.
Find the Schedule of Oral Arguments with the approximate time and the date for each case here.
SADO and MAACS attorneys are schedule to argue before the Michigan Supreme Court at its session, January 23-24, 2019, in the following cases.
CALENDAR CASE
People v Joel Eusevio Davis, Docket No. 156406 (to be argued at the same session as Price, Docket No. 156180)
The Court granted leave to appeal to address (1) whether the defendant’s convictions under MCL 750.81a(3) and MCL 750.84 violate double jeopardy; (2) whether MCL 750.81a and MCL 750.84 contain contradictory and mutually exclusive provisions such that the Legislature did not intend a defendant to be convicted of both crimes for the same conduct; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in recognizing a rule against mutually exclusive verdicts in Michigan; and (4) whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying this rule to the facts of this case. Mr. Davis is represented by SADO’s Jacqueline McCann.
ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPLICATIONS
People v Dorian Lamarr Price, Docket No. 156180 (to be argued at the same session as Davis, Docket No. 156406)
The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the defendant’s convictions under MCL 750.82 and MCL 750.84 violate double jeopardy; (2) whether MCL 750.82 and MCL 750.84 contain contradictory and mutually exclusive provisions such that the Legislature did not intend a defendant to be convicted of both crimes for the same conduct; (3) whether the Court of Appeals in People v Davis, 320 Mich App 484 (2017), erred in recognizing a rule against mutually exclusive verdicts in Michigan; and (4) whether that rule is applicable to the facts of this case. Mr. Price is represented by SADO’s Douglas Baker.
People v Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, Docket No. 156746 (to be argued at the same session as Beck, Docket No. 152934)
The Court directed the parties to address (1) to what extent the sentencing guidelines should be considered to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the principle of proportionality; and (2) whether, when a jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder, the trial court abused its discretion in applying the principle of proportionality if it either (a) sentenced the defendant according to an independent finding that she committed first-degree murder or (b) departed upward from the sentencing guidelines for second-degree murder based on facts established by a preponderance of the evidence that the jury did not find were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. Dixon-Bey is represented by MAACS’s Gary Strauss.
The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial judge’s comments to the jury in lieu of the standard “deadlocked jury” instruction; (2) whether OV 19 was improperly assigned 10 points for interference with the administration of justice; and (3) if OV 19 was misscored, whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing before a different judge based on the judge’s verbal exchange with the defendant at sentencing. Mr. Walker is represented by SADO’s Adrienne Young.
People v David Ross Ames, Docket No. 156077
The Court directed the parties to address whether MCL 769.34(10) has been rendered invalid by the decision in Lockridge, to the extent that the statute requires the Court of Appeals to affirm sentences that fall within the applicable guidelines range “absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information relied upon in determining the defendant’s sentence.” Mr. Ames is represented by SADO’s Marilena David-Martin.
People v Kelli Marie Worth-McBride, Docket No. 156430 (to be argued at the same session as Lee, Docket No. 157176)
The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether a parent/defendant, either as a principal or as an aider and abettor, can be convicted of first-degree child abuse or second-degree murder when a child suffers serious physical harm or death as a result of the parent/defendant leaving the child in the care of the other parent with knowledge that the other parent previously injured the child and that serious physical harm or death would be caused by leaving the child with the other parent; and (2) if so, whether the evidence is sufficient in this case to establish the defendant’s knowledge that serious physical harm or death would be caused by leaving the child with the other parent. Ms. Worth-McBride is represented by SADO’s Christine Pagac.
People v James Lee, Docket No. 157176 (to be argued at the same session as Worth-McBride, Docket No. 156430)
On the prosecution’s application, the Court directed the parties to address whether there is sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed an “act,” as that term is used in MCL 750.136b(3)(b). Mr. Lee is represented by SADO’s Jason Eggert.
Find the Supreme Court’s case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties here.
Find the Schedule of Oral Arguments with the approximate time and the date for each case here.
Watch live-streaming of the oral arguments here.
Subscriber Comments