Michigan Supreme Court dodges application of Blakely
It has been a while since a state supreme court has provides any Blakely fireworks. But a helpful reader tonight sent me copies of two lengthy opinions released today from the Michigan Supreme Court in which the court dodges the application of Blakely in the state up north. Here are the basics:
People v. Drohan, No. 127489 (Mich. June 13, 2006) (available for download below):
We granted leave to appeal to consider whether Michigan’s indeterminate sentencing scheme, which allows a trial court to set a defendant’s minimum sentence on the basis of factors determined by a preponderance of the evidence, violates the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. Defendant also pleaded guilty to a charge of being a third-offense habitual offender. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 127 to 360 months of incarceration on the third-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction. This range was calculated by the trial court’s assignment of points to defendant’s “offense variable” and “prior record variable” scores under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Defendant appealed his sentence, asserting that it was imposed contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 (2004), because the sentence was based on facts that were not determined by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, relying on this Court’s decision in People v Claypool, 470 Mich 715, 730 n 14 (2004). Because we conclude that Michigan’s sentencing scheme does not offend the Sixth Amendment, we affirm defendant’s sentence.
Download mich_drohan_decision.pdf
People v. McCullen, No. 128161 (Mich. June 13, 2006) (available for download below):
Defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder following a jury trial. The properly scored recommended minimum sentence guidelines range for defendant’s offense provided for a term of five to 28 months’ imprisonment, thus placing defendant in a so-called “straddle cell.” The trial court sentenced defendant within the guidelines range to two to 15 years of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues that because his prior record variable (PRV) score alone placed him in a recommended minimum guidelines range of zero to 11 months, he is entitled to an intermediate sanction. Defendant contends that the trial court violated Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 (2004), by engaging in judicial fact-finding to score the offense variables (OVs), thereby allegedly increasing his maximum sentence from an intermediate sanction to a prison term. We reject defendant’s and the dissent’s contention and affirm defendant’s sentence.