SADO Attorneys to Argue Before Michigan Supreme Court at December Session

Arguments Scheduled Wednesday, December 11, 2019
SADO’s Steven Helton, Christine Pagac, and Erin Van Campen will present arguments to the Michigan Supreme Court at its December session, December 11, 2019, on issues including the effect of resentencing on one count on the sentences for other counts (People v. Tykeith L Turner), what constitutes waiver (and the effect of waiver) of a restitution hearing (People v. Gary Gilmore), and the admissibility of gang-affiliation evidence (People v Jamal Devonta Bennett).

People v Tykeith L Turner, Docket No. 158068 – SADO’s Erin Van Campen

•    Effect of Resentencing on One Count on Sentences for Other Counts  

In this calendar case, the Court directed 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. The case is scheduled for argument during the afternoon session on December 11, 2019.

People v Gary Gilmore, Docket No. 158716 – SADO’s Steven Helton

•    Waiver of Restitution Hearing

In this grant of oral argument on the application, the Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the defendant waived the question of his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing regarding the amount of restitution, compare People v Gahan, 456 Mich 264, 276 (1997), overruled in part by People v McKinley, 496 Mich 410, 413 (2014) (stating that the failure to affirmatively request an evidentiary hearing regarding restitution is a waiver of a defendant’s due process claim on appeal) with People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 (2006) (defining waiver as “the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right” and distinguishing waiver from forfeiture, which has been defined as “the failure to make the timely assertion of a right.”); and if not, (2) whether the Wayne Circuit Court erred in denying the defendant such a hearing. See McKinley, 496 Mich 410. The case is scheduled for argument during the morning session on December 11, 2019.

People v Jamal Devonta Bennett, Docket No. 157936 – SADO’s Christine Pagac

•    Gang-Affiliation Evidence

The Court directed the parties to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding: (1) that the preserved error in admitting the rap videos was not outcome determinative; (2) that the unpreserved error in admitting the gang-affiliation testimony was not plain error; and (3) that the erroneously admitted evidence, in conjunction with the prosecutor’s argument in closing that this evidence showed the “mentality” of defendant and his friends and the “lifestyle” they lived, did not constitute impermissible character evidence under MRE 404(a) and People v Bynum, 496 Mich 610 (2014). The case is scheduled for argument during the morning session on December 11, 2019.

Find the Supreme Court summaries of these cases and the parties’ briefs here.

Watch live streaming arguments here.