If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

FOR PUBLICATION

March 12, 2020

9:00 a.m.

v No. 339452

Berrien Circuit Court

MICHAEL SCOTT BARBER, LC No. 2017-015214-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and MURRAY C.J., and FORT HOOD, J.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from defendant’s jury trial convictions of assault by strangulation, MCL 

750.84(1)(b), third-degree fleeing and eluding, MCL 257.602a(3), assaulting and obstructing a 

police officer causing a bodily injury requiring medical attention, MCL 750.81d(2), attempt to 

disarm a police officer, MCL 750.479b(2), receiving and possessing a stolen vehicle, MCL 

750.535(7), and assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), 

MCL 750.84(1)(a). The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 to 15 years in prison for the assault 

by strangulation conviction, 60 to 90 months for the third-degree fleeing and eluding conviction, 

24 to 36 months for the attempt to disarm a police officer conviction, 60 to 90 months for the 

receiving and possessing a stolen vehicle conviction, 10 to 15 years for the AWIGBH conviction, 

and a consecutive 48 to 72 months for the assaulting and obstructing a police officer causing a 

bodily injury requiring medical attention conviction. The sole issue on remand is whether double 

jeopardy precludes defendant’s conviction of both assault by strangulation and AWIGBH arising 

from a single incident of assault. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that it does.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In its November 27, 2018 unpublished, per curiam opinion, this Court summarized the 

underlying facts as follows:

On February 20, 2017, Michigan State Police Trooper Garry Guild observed 

Barber driving a motorcycle, which was later determined to be stolen, on US-31 at 
-2-

a speed of 92 miles per hour. When Trooper Guild turned on his emergency lights 

to make a traffic stop, Barber looked back at the police cruiser, put on his turn 

signal, moved into the right lane, pulled onto the shoulder of the highway, and 

slowed to approximately 60 miles per hour. Barber did not stop, however, and he 

quickly accelerated back onto the highway. Trooper Guild notified police 

dispatchers that the motorcyclist was fleeing from a traffic stop, and the trooper 

activated his siren in addition to his emergency lights. Barber twice drove onto exit 

ramps as if leaving the highway, but he veered back toward the highway and 

continued his flight from the state police trooper. Barber ultimately lost control of 

the motorcycle and crashed in the grass next to the highway, throwing Barber 

several feet from the motorcycle onto the ground.

Trooper Guild got out of his vehicle, pulled his firearm out of its holster, 

and yelled at Barber to stay back and get down on the ground. Barber failed to 

comply with the trooper’s commands. Instead, Barber got up off the ground and 

staggered toward the trooper. Trooper Guild was concerned that Barber had a 

weapon and that Barber might have been injured. Because the trooper did not see 

anything in Barber’s hands, he determined that Barber did not have a weapon and 

decided to holster his firearm. Barber advanced toward Trooper Guild so quickly 

that the trooper did not have a chance to fully holster the firearm.

Trooper Guild put out his left hand and pushed Barber away from him. 

Barber fell backward, and the two men fell on the ground. Trooper Guild attempted 

to handcuff Barber, who continued to struggle with the trooper. At some point 

during the scuffle, the trooper’s firearm ended up on the ground. While the trooper 

was struggling to handcuff the noncompliant Barber, a vehicle pulled off the side 

of the highway, and an occupant of that vehicle threw a soda bottle at Trooper 

Guild. An individual, later identified as Barber’s brother, Travis Wise, got out of 

the car and attempted to push the trooper off of Barber. Wise then wrapped his arm 

around the trooper’s neck, choked him, violently pulled him back several feet, and 

yelled at Barber to run. Trooper Guild felt his breathing getting heavy and heard 

himself struggling to breathe while he fought to maintain an airway. Barber began 

to run, but he returned to where Wise was still choking the trooper. Barber then 

reached toward the trooper’s firearm holster on the right side of his utility belt and 

began tugging at the holster. Trooper Guild instinctively put his hand down to try 

to prevent removal of the firearm from the holster. At that moment, Trooper Guild 

did not know that his firearm was not in its holster. While the trooper struggled to 

breathe, he believed that he was balancing the risk of being choked to death against 

the risk of being shot to death with his own firearm. Trooper Guild testified that 

Barber punched him twice in the jaw, causing him to feel stunned. Trooper Guild 

believed that he was going to lose consciousness in a matter of seconds, and he 

thought he was going to die.

At that point, two bystanders pulled Wise off of the trooper and held him to 

the ground. While the bystanders fought with Wise, Trooper Guild tased Barber 

before he was able to handcuff him. The trooper retrieved his firearm that had 

fallen on the ground several feet from where he struggled with Barber. While the 
-3-

trooper took Barber to the patrol cruiser, Barber continued to struggle, attempting 

to pull away and run away. After Barber was placed in the backseat of the patrol 

cruiser, he opened the rear door and started running away. One of the bystanders 

ran after Barber and recaptured him. Barber was finally secured in a second police 

officer’s cruiser. [People v Barber, unpublished per curiam opinion, issued 

November 27, 2018 (Docket No. 339452), pp 1-2, vacated in part and remanded 

People v Barber, ___ Mich ___; 936 NW2d 451 (2019).]

This Court affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentences. Barber, unpub op at 1. It 

concluded that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, 

defendant waived his right to challenge the manner in which voir dire was conducted, and the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward departure and consecutive sentences. Id. 

at 2-4, 5-7. In Part III of the opinion, which is relevant on remand, this Court concluded that 

defendant’s convictions for assault by strangulation and AWIGBH did not violate the 

constitutional protection against double jeopardy because each offense requires proof of an 

element that the other does not. Id. at 4-5.

On February 4, 2019, defendant filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan 

Supreme Court. On December 23, 2019, the Supreme Court vacated Part III of this Court’s 

opinion because it “did not address the defendant’s argument that the Legislature did not intend 

for a single act to result in convictions for both assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than 

murder, MCL 750.84(1)(a), and assault by strangulation, MCL 750.84(1)(b).” People v Barber, 

___ Mich ___, ___; 936 NW2d 451 (2019) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court remanded to 

this Court for reconsideration in light of People v Miller, 498 Mich 13, 19; 869 NW2d 204 (2015), 

and denied leave to appeal in all other respects. Id.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Because defendant raised his double-jeopardy challenge for the first time on appeal, it is 

not preserved for appellate review. “However, a double jeopardy issue presents a significant 

constitutional question that will be considered on appeal regardless of whether the defendant raised 

it before the trial court.” People v McGee, 280 Mich App 680, 682; 761 NW2d 743 (2008). We 

review defendant’s unpreserved claim for plain error affecting his substantial rights. 

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that the Legislature did not intend that a single act of strangulation that 

is sufficient also to prove AWIGBH should result in two separate convictions under MCL 750.84. 

According to defendant, the plain language of the statute provides that a person can violate it either

by strangulation or by other means. Thus, the Court should vacate defendant’s conviction for 

AWIGBH while allowing the conviction for assault by strangulation to stand. 

The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Michigan 

Constitution protect against multiple punishments for the same offense. People v Ford, 262 Mich 

App 443, 447-448; 687 NW2d 119 (2004). “The prohibition against double jeopardy protects 

individuals in three ways: (1) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after 

acquittal; (2) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) 
-4-

it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Miller, 498 Mich at 17 (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). This case involves the “multiple punishments” strand of the 

prohibition against double jeopardy. See Miller, 498 Mich at 17. Where the Legislature 

specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, the multiple punishments strand 

is not violated. Id. at 18. “Conversely, where the Legislature expresses a clear intention in the 

plain language of a statute to prohibit multiple punishments, it will be a violation of the multiple 

punishments strand for a trial court to cumulatively punish a defendant for both offenses in a single 

trial.” Id.

In Miller, our Supreme Court held that “when considering whether two offenses are the 

‘same offense’ in the context of the multiple punishments strand of double jeopardy,” courts “must 

first determine whether the statutory language evinces a legislative intent with regard to the 

permissibility of multiple punishments. If the legislative intent is clear, courts are required to abide 

by this intent.” Id. at 19 (citation omitted). If the legislative intent is not clear, then courts must 

apply the “abstract legal elements” test to determine the legislative intent. Id. 

At issue in Miller was whether double jeopardy precluded convictions of both operating 

while intoxicated (OWI) under MCL 257.625(1) and operating while intoxicated causing serious 

impairment of the body function of another person (OWI-injury) under MCL 257.625(5), based 

on a single intoxicated driving incident. Miller, 498 Mich at 20 The Court concluded that, 

although the statutory provisions at issue were silent regarding multiple punishments, the specific 

authorization for multiple punishments found in another subsection of the statute led to the 

conclusion that the Legislature did not intend to permit multiple punishments for OWI and OWIinjury offenses arising from the same incident. Id. at 23-24.

The first criterion in determining legislative intent is the specific language of the statute. 

People v Lively, 470 Mich 248, 253; 680 NW2d 878 (2004). The Legislature is presumed to have 

intended the meaning it plainly expressed. People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50; 753 NW2d 78 

(2008). Thus, to determine whether double jeopardy precludes defendant’s conviction of assault 

by strangulation and AWIGBH arising from a single incident of assault, it is necessary to first 

consider the language of the statutory provisions at issue. MCL 750.84(1) provides:

A person who does either of the following is guilty of a felony punishable

by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00,

or both:

(a) Assaults another person with intent to do great bodily harm, less than 

the crime of murder.

(b) Assaults another person by strangulation or suffocation.

The plain language of this subsection does not expressly address multiple punishments for 

AWIGBH and assault by strangulation. On the one hand, the statute provides that a person who 

“does either of the following is guilty of a felony . . . .” Used as a pronoun, “either” means “the 

one or the other”; for example, “take either of the two roads.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate 

Dictionary (11th ed), p 399. Thus used, MCL 750.84(1) suggests that anyone who either (a), 

assaults another with intent to great bodily harm, or (b), assaults another person by strangulation 
-5-

or suffocation, is guilty of a felony, thus suggesting that subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are alternate 

means of committing the same, single offense, i.e., “a felony.”

On the other hand, the statute does not expressly address the situation in which a single act 

constitutes both types of assaults. The prosecution asserts that the Legislature’s use of the word 

“either” does not show an intent to list alternate means of committing the same offense. The 

prosecution identifies other statutes that it contends provide alternative means of committing an 

offense, and observes that those statutes set forth alternate means of committing a specified crime, 

not simply “a felony,” as in MCL 750.84. For example, MCL 750.110a(4) provides: “A person is 

guilty of home invasion in the third degree if the person does either of the following.” The 

implication seems to be that when the Legislature intends a statute to provide alternate means of 

committing a crime, it specifies the crime, rather than broadly describing it as “a felony.” This

argument is made less persuasive by the fact that use of the phrase “a felony” in MCL 750.84, is 

necessary because the two types of assault listed in this statute have different names. By contrast, 

the types of home invasion listed in MCL 750.110a(4) are all called third-degree home invasion. 

The fact that AWIGBH and assault by strangulation have different names does not clearly 

demonstrate the Legislature’s intent to allow the same conduct to give rise to cumulative

punishment under subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) rather than to identify two alternate ways one could 

be guilty of a single felony.

The prosecution argues that its position is strengthened by the legislative history of MCL 

750.84. Again, we disagree. The statute as introduced by the original Senate bill provided:

A person who assaults another with intent to do great bodily harm, less than 

the crime of murder, including, but not limited to, assaulting another by 

strangulation or suffocation, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in 

the state prison not more than 10 years or by fine of not more than $5,000.00, or 

both. As used in this section, “strangulation or suffocation” means intentionally 

impeding normal breathing or circulation of the blood by applying pressure on the 

throat or neck or by blocking the nose or mouth of another person. [Senate Bill No. 

848.]

Thus, the original language of the bill suggests that assault by strangulation would have been 

considered a type, or subcategory, of AWIGBH. However, Legislators rejected this language in 

favor of language that makes clear that an assault by strangulation is not necessarily a subcategory 

of AWIGBH. Contrary to the prosecution’s argument, the rejection of the original language does 

not show a clear intent to allow for multiple punishments.

Read in isolation, MCL 750.84(1) is not clear as to legislative intent regarding multiple 

punishments. However, reading the statute as a whole, Miller, 498 Mich at 23, it is significant that 

subsection (3) of the statute provides: “This section does not prohibit a person from being charged 

with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law arising out of the same conduct as 

the violation of this section.” MCL 750.84(3). Thus, subsection (3) expressly allows multiple 

convictions and punishments where the same conduct violates MCL 750.84(1) and some other 

criminal statute. The fact that the Legislature expressly authorized multiple punishments for “the 

violation of this section” and any other statutory violations demonstrates that the Legislature did 

not intend to permit multiple punishments for violations of the subsections MCL 750.84(1)(a) and 
-6-

(b). If the Legislature had intended to allow multiple punishments for both subsections (1)(a) and 

(1)(b) arising out of the same conduct, it clearly knew how to do so. See Miller, 498 Mich at 24-

25. Additionally, to interpret MCL 750.84(1) as permitting multiple punishments for its 

subsections would render the specific authorization in MCL 750.84(3) surplusage. See Miller, 498 

Mich at 25. 

We conclude that MCL 750.84 reflects the Legislature’s intent that a person is guilty of a 

felony if he or she commits either AWIGBH or an assault by strangulation or suffocation. 

Although the statute does not permit “a trial court to cumulatively punish a defendant for both 

offenses in a single trial,” Miller, 498 Mich at 18, it does allow a trial court to punish a defendant 

for violation of MCL 750.84 together with any other violation of law arising out of the same 

conduct. Therefore, defendant’s convictions of assault by strangulation and AWIGBH for the 

same conduct violated the double jeopardy prohibition. This is true even though concurrent 

sentences were imposed for these convictions. See id. at 26 n 34. To remedy a double jeopardy 

violation, it is appropriate to “affirm the conviction of the higher charge and to vacate the lower 

conviction.” People v Herron, 464 Mich 593, 609; 628 NW2d 528 (2001). In this case, neither 

assault by strangulation nor AWIGBH is a higher charge, and the same sentence was imposed for 

each conviction. Defendant requests that the AWIGBH conviction be vacated; because assault by 

strangulation is more factually specific and was the first count in defendant’s judgment of sentence, 

we find no reason to disagree. Thus, we vacate the AWIGBH conviction and remand the matter 

to the trial court for resentencing. See Miller, 498 Mich at 27.

We vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence for AWIGBH and remand to the trial court 

for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Jane M. Beckering

/s/ Christopher M. Murray

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood