-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2016

v No. 328237 Montcalm Circuit Court ROGER LEON HUNT, JR., LC No. 2014-019463-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: K. F. K ELLY , P.J., and O’C ONNELL and B OONSTRA , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant, Roger Leon Hunt, Jr., appeals as of right his convi ctions, following a jury trial, of operating or maintaini ng a methamphetamine laboratory , MCL 333.7401c(1)(a), owning or possessing chemicals or labor atory equipment for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine, MCL 333.7401c(1)(b), and maintaining a drug ho use, MCL 333.7405(d). The trial court sentenced Hunt as a third-offense habitual offe nder, MCL 769.11, to serve concurrent terms of 5 years, 6 months’ to 40 years’ imprisonmen t for his convictions of operating a methamphetamine laboratory and possessing chemicals or laboratory equipment to manufacture methamphetamine, and 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment for maintaining a drug house. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Richard Young testified that he lived with Hunt for three year s. Young and Hunt learned how to cook methamphetamine and, in October 2014, they began co oking it together. Young and Hunt would cook methamphetamine in the house, and then Youn g, Hunt, and Kayla Jones would use the methamphetamine. Jones testified that she freque ntly observed Young and Hunt enter a tarped-off area in the home, where she assumed they wer e cooking methamphetamine because of the supplies they took into the area and the subsequ ent odor.

In November 2014, a person who had consumed methamphetamine at Hunt’s house informed the Edmore Police that Hunt was operating a methamphet amine laboratory in his home. The Central Michigan Enforcement Team executed a search warrant . Detective Matt Buter testified that the search uncove red a one-pot reaction vessel u sed to manufacture methamphetamine, a “dry” one pot-reaction vessel in the laundry -room, and a cut-open lithium battery. Young testified that he used lithium batteries when m anufacturing methamphetamine.-2- Detective Buter also testified that he found a hydrogen generat or, a blender, and coffee filters, all of which are also used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine.

The prosecution presented addi tional evidence and testimony. The jury found Hunt guilty as previously described. Hunt now appeals, contending t hat his convictions of both operating or maintaining a metham phetamine laboratory under MCL 333.7401c(1)(a) and owning or possessing chemicals or laboratory equipment under MC L 333.7401c(1)(b) violated his constitutional right against being convicted multiple times for the same offense.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A double jeopardy challenge pre sents a question of constituti onal law that this Court reviews de novo.” People v Smith , 478 Mich 292, 298; 733 NW2d 351 (2007).

III. DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Hunt contends that because it is necessary to own or possess c hemicals or laboratory equipment for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine to m aintain a methamphetamine laboratory, he has been convicted of multiple offenses for the same conduct, in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States and Michi gan constitutions. We disagree.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a criminal defendant from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” US Const, Am V; People v Szalma , 487 Mich 708, 715-716; 790 NW2d 662 (2010). The Michigan Constitut ion contains a parallel provision that this Court constr ues consistently with the Fifth Amendment. Const 1963, art 1, § 15; Szalma , 487 Mich at 716. In part, this provision protects a criminal defendant against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. People v Ream , 481 Mich 223, 227; 750 NW2d 536 (2008).

Courts apply the Blockburger 1 test when a defendant’s conduct violates two different
statutes. People v Gibbs , 299 Mich App 473, 489; 830 NW2d 821 (2013). When a defendant ’s conduct violates two different sta tutes, this Court must determ ine whether the offenses have the same elements. Ream , 481 Mich at 240. If each offense requires proof of a fact th at the other does not, multiple convictions do not violate a defendant’s rig ht against double jeopardy. Id . at 227-228. This is true even if there is a substantial overlap b etween the proofs the prosecution must offer for each offense. People v Nutt , 469 Mich 565, 576; 677 NW2d 1 (2004).

MCL 333.7401c prohibits a variet y of conduct, including the co nduct for which Hunt was convicted:

(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

1 Blockburger v United States , 284 US 299; 52 S Ct 180; 76 L Ed 306 (1932).-3- (a) Own, possess, or use a vehicle, building, structure, place, or area that he or she knows or has reason to know is to be used as a location to manu facture a controlled substance in viola tion of [MCL 333.7401] or a counte rfeit substance or a controlled substa nce analogue in vio lation of [MCL 333.7402].

(b) Own or possess any chemical or any laboratory equipment tha t he or she knows or has reason to know is to be used for the purpose of ma nufacturing a controlled substance in viola tion of [MCL 333.7401] or a counte rfeit substance or a controlled substa nce analogue in vio lation of [MCL 333.7402].

Hunt relies on People v Meshell , 265 Mich App 616; 696 NW2d 754 (2005), to contend that his convictions under both subdivisions (a) and (b) violat ed his right against double jeopardy. In Meshell , the defendant was convicted of operating a methamphetamine la boratory under both a general sentencing provision and an enhanced sente ncing provision for doing so near a residence. Id . at 618. In that case, all the elements of operating a metham phetamine laboratory generally were encompassed within the statute the pr ohibited doing so within 500 feet of a residence. Id . at 631.

This Court’s Meshell decision is distinguishable from the facts in this case. Rele vant to this case, MCL 333.7401c(1)(a) pro hibits a person from owning, possessing, or using a structure that he or she knows is to be u sed to manufacture a controlled substance. MCL 333.7401c(1)(b) prohibits a person from owning or possessing any chemical or la boratory equipment that he or she knows is to be used to manufac ture a controlled substance. Subdivision (a) required the prosecution to prove that Hunt owned the house in which the met hamphetamine was manufactured, while subdivision (b) required the prosecution to prove that Hunt owned the chemicals and equipment found in the house. Accordingly, each subdivision required the prosecution to prove an element that the other subdivision did not. Even though there was a substantial overlap in the pr oofs the prosecution was required to present, the Blockberger test is satisfied. See Nutt , 469 Mich at 576. We conclude that Hunt’s convictions under b oth subdivision (a) and (b) did not vi olate his right against doubl e jeopardy.

We affirm.

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly /s/ Peter D. O’Connell /s/ Mark T. Boonstra