By Lee Dryden
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT — A dispute over reclassified state corrections employees, a breach-of-contract complaint over a massage therapy business, and several criminal matters are among the cases that will be heard by the Michigan Supreme Court during January oral arguments.
The high court will convene to hear the cases on the sixth floor of the Hall of Justice, 925 W. Ottawa St. in Lansing. Arguments will begin at 9:30 a.m. Jan. 23-24.
Oral arguments are broadcast live at goo.gl/MFtDR8.
Jan. 23 morning session: People v. Dixon-Bey; People v. Beck; Walker v. Underwood; Henderson v. Civil Service Commission.
Jan. 23 afternoon session: People v. Worth-McBride; People v. Lee.
Jan. 24 morning session: People v. Price; People v. Davis; People v. Walker; People v. Corley; People v. Ames.
Information about select cases below is based on case summaries provided by the Michigan Courts. See goo.gl/9RC1yu for details about all cases.
—————
Jan. 23 morning session
• People v. Dixon-Bey
Defendant fatally stabbed Gregory Stack, her longtime boyfriend, in the heart. After first giving the police a false story about who stabbed the victim, defendant admitted she had done it, but claimed to have acted in self-defense. She was charged with first-degree murder. A jury convicted her of the lesser offense of second-degree murder. The trial judge sentenced defendant to serve a prison term of 35 to 70 years, a 15-year departure from the sentencing guidelines range, primarily because of his finding that defendant “brutally murdered [Stack] in cold blood.”
In a split published opinion, the Court of Appeals majority held that the trial court’s departure sentence was not reasonably proportionate to the offense and the offender; it vacated her sentence and remanded for resentencing. The dissenting judge found no abuse of discretion by the trial court.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal 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 under People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 (2017); 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. See MCL 777.36(2)(a); People v. Ewing (After Remand), 435 Mich 443 (1990); People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 654 (1990). The case will be considered together with People v. Beck, Docket No. 152934.
• Walker v. Underwood
Defendant Otis M. Underwood Jr., agreed to develop part of a building he owns in Lake Orion so that plaintiffs Donna and William Walker could use the space for their massage therapy business. As part of their preliminary agreement, defendant promised to obtain an occupancy permit. When that did not occur in a timely manner, plaintiffs withdrew from the agreement and then filed this lawsuit alleging breach of contract.
The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant based on a paragraph in the parties’ contract expressly permitting plaintiffs, in the event of a breach, to declare a default and terminate the contract, or receive another agreed-upon remedy.
The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed the grant of summary disposition. The majority interpreted the at-issue paragraph as non-exclusive, thereby allowing plaintiffs to pursue all other potential remedies, including their breach-of-contract claim. The dissent opined that, by listing two available remedies, it was evident that the parties intended those to be the exclusive remedies available for a breach, and that defendant was entitled to summary disposition.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal to address the meaning of paragraph 10 of the parties’ agreement that is in dispute and the applicability of the legal canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) in the interpretation of that paragraph.
• Henderson v. Civil Service Commission
Plaintiffs are among the 2,500 employees of the Department of Corrections whose positions were abolished, resulting in their reclassification to a lower pay grade while still performing the same duties. Plaintiffs, through their union, administratively challenged the reclassification. Ultimately, the Civil Service Commission issued a final determination that upheld the reclassification.
On judicial review, the circuit court held that the reclassification was arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by competent, material, and substantial record evidence. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion, holding that review of a final agency determination, where a hearing is not required, is limited to whether the decision is authorized by law.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether the “authorized by law” scope of review under Const 1963, art 6, § 28, applied to plaintiffs’ judicial review of the Civil Service Commission’s final decision made without a hearing; (2) if so, whether the Court of Appeals gave proper meaning to the “authorized by law” constitutional standard; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied that scope of review to plaintiffs’ challenge.
Jan. 24 morning session
• People v. Price
On September 2014, defendant was involved in escalating altercations with Clyde Beauchamp, who was the caretaker of several residential properties in Detroit, including the house in which defendant’s sister-in-law lived with her children. The last incident resulted in defendant shooting Beauchamp.
After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH) and felonious assault, both arising from the last incident. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial judge, sitting as fact-finder, rendered inconsistent verdicts because AWIGBH requires an “intent to do great bodily harm, less than the crime of murder,” whereas felonious assault is defined as an assault “without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder.”
Defendant argues that the Legislature did not intend to punish him for the same act under both statutes in violation of double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished split decision.
The Supreme Court has directed oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal 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, compare People v. Miller, 498 Mich 13, 18-26 (2015), with People v. Doss, 406 Mich 90, 96-99 (1979); (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, see generally United States v. Powell, 469 US 57, 69 n 8 (1984); State v. Davis, 466 SW3d 49 (Tenn, 2015); and (4) whether that rule is applicable to the facts of this case. This case will be argued at the same session as People v. Davis, Docket No. 156406.
• People v. Walker
Police officers saw defendant, a felon, pull a gun out of his pocket and throw it into some bushes. At trial on weapons charges, defendant testified that what he threw was a beer bottle, and a defense witness testified that the gun belonged to him, not defendant, and that he had hidden it in the bushes, where it was found, before defendant arrived. A jury convicted defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, third offense.
The trial judge sentenced defendant as a habitual-fourth offender to serve concurrent prison terms of 46 months to 75 years for felon-in-possession and CCW, both consecutive to the mandatory 10-year sentence for felony-firearm, third-offense. The judge assigned 15 points to OV 19 (interference with administration of justice) based on her belief that defendant committed perjury when he testified on his own behalf at trial, and that defendant had prevailed upon the defense witness to fabricate his testimony.
The judge did not articulate any specific facts to support those beliefs. The judge also provoked an exchange with defendant at sentencing in which the judge, among other things, repeatedly called the defendant a clown. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
The Supreme Court has directed oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal 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, M Crim JI 3.12; (2) whether Offense Variable 19 (OV 19), MCL 777.49, was improperly assigned 10 points for interference with the administration of justice, see People v. Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 438 (2013), and People v. Adams, 430 Mich 679, 689 (1988); 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.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
