Cases for Argument - Summary of Applications/Oral Argument on Applications Granted - May, 2019

The following criminal cases are scheduled for argument before the Michigan Supreme Court on May 7, 2019.

ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPLICATIONS

People v Shae Lynn Mullins, Docket No. 157116 

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether MCL 722.633(5), which criminalizes making a false report of felony child abuse, applies to non-mandatory reporters; (2) whether the phrase “intentionally makes a false report of child abuse or neglect” is broad enough to encompass a circumstance in which a child is intentionally enlisted for the purpose of falsely accusing another of abuse or neglect; and (3) whether MCL 722.633(5) must be read in light of the common-law doctrine of the innocent agent. 

People v Kelvin Willis, Docket No. 157465 

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether, to sustain a conviction under MCL 750.145c(2), the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted for the purpose of producing or making child sexually abusive material; and (2) whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for child sexually abusive activity, MCL 750.145c(2). Mr. Willis is represented by MAACS’s Ronald Ambrose.

People v Antjuan Pierre Jackson, Docket No. 156502

The Court directed the parties to address whether the provision in MCL 777.19(1) that the sentencing guidelines only apply to an attempt to commit an enumerated offense “if the attempted violation is a felony” requires that the offense the defendant attempted to commit be a felony, or the attempt conviction itself be a felony, for purposes of scoring OV 13. Mr. Jackson is represented by SADO’s Angeles Meneses.

The Supreme Court’s case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties will be available at
https://courts.michigan.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/oral-arguments/pages/default.aspx

Watch live streaming arguments at
https://courts.michigan.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/oral-arguments/live-streaming/pages/live-streaming.aspx

Summary of Applications/Oral Argument
on Applications Granted

Leave to Appeal Granted

People v Tykeith L Turner, MSC No. 158068 (COA No. 336406), application granted April 5, 2019.

Issues: The Court ordered the parties to address: (1) whether a legal misconception concerning a defendant’s sentence on one count renders the sentences for other counts arising out of the same transaction invalid; (2) whether the requirements for a motion for relief from judgment must be satisfied before a defendant may be resentenced on other counts where a change in the law requires resentencing for one count, or whether a trial court may exercise its discretion to resentence on other counts where resentencing is required for one count; and (3) if the latter, what parameters apply to the exercise of the court’s discretion when deciding whether to resentence on other counts.

People v Ihab Masalmani, MSC No. 154733 (COA No. 325662), application granted April 5, 2019.

Issues: The Court limited the grant to the question of whether the trial court properly considered the Miller factors as potentially mitigating circumstances when sentencing the defendant to life without parole (LWOP). Particularly, the Court order the parties to address (1) which party, if any, must prove that a Miller factor does or does not suggest a LWOP sentence; (2) whether the sentencing court gave proper consideration to the defendant’s “chronological age and its hallmark features” by focusing on his proximity to the bright line age of 18 rather than his individual characteristics; and (3) whether the court properly considered the defendant’s family and home environment and the lack of available treatment programs in the MDOC as weighing against his potential for rehabilitation.

Mini-Oral Argument on
Application Granted

People v Kelly Christopher Warren, MSC No. 158065 (COA No. 333997), MOAA granted March 27, 2019.

Issue: The Court ordered the parties to address whether, when a defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest will subject him to the court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences, the court must advise the defendant of that possibility before the court may accept the plea.

People v Xun Wang, MSC No. 158013 (COA No. 336673), MOAA granted March 27, 2019.

Issues: The Court ordered the parties to address (1) whether the statutory exception in MCL 333.16294 is an element of the offense for which the prosecutor has the burden of proof, see People v Rios, 386 Mich 172 (1971); but see People v Langlois, 325 Mich App 236 (2018); (2) if the statutory exception is an element of the offense, whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction under MCL 333.16294 and, specifically, whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the defendant’s actions were consistent with the practice of medicine and therefore could not be delegated to her under MCL 333.16215; and (3) if the statutory exception is not an element of the offense, whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a delegation defense and bring the relevant statutory provisions to the trial court’s attention. Additionally, the parties were ordered to address whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s convictions under MCL 400.607(1), and specifically whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant was in possession of facts under which she was aware or should have been aware that her conduct was substantially certain to cause the payment of a Medicaid benefit. 

People v Dennis Keith Towne, MSC No. 157210 (COA No. 322820), MOAA granted March 29, 2019.

Issues: The Court ordered the parties to address (1) whether the police exceeded the proper scope of a knock and talk when they approached and secured the defendant’s home at night while attempting to execute an arrest warrant for the defendant’s son, who lived elsewhere; (2) whether the police had sufficient grounds to believe that the subject of the arrest warrant was inside the defendant’s home; (3) the appropriate standard to be used by a reviewing court to determine whether the police are permitted to enter a third-party’s home or curtilage to execute an arrest warrant; (4) if the proper scope of a knock and talk was not exceeded in this case, whether the plain view or exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement permitted the police to forcibly enter the defendant’s home based on an officer’s perceptions while posted at the rear of the home in the curtilage or in an “open field”; and (5) whether the exclusionary rule should apply under these circumstances.

by John Zevalking
Associate Editor