-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UNPUBLISHED 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. KELLY, P.J., and O’CONNELL and BOONSTRA, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant, Roger Leon Hunt, Jr., appeals as of right his convictions, following a jury 

trial, of operating or maintaining a methamphetamine laboratory, MCL 333.7401c(1)(a), owning 

or possessing chemicals or laboratory equipment for the purpose of manufacturing 

methamphetamine, MCL 333.7401c(1)(b), and maintaining a drug house, MCL 333.7405(d). 

The trial court sentenced Hunt as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to serve 

concurrent terms of 5 years, 6 months’ to 40 years’ imprisonment 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 years. Young and Hunt learned 

how to cook methamphetamine and, in October 2014, they began cooking it together. Young 

and Hunt would cook methamphetamine in the house, and then Young, Hunt, and Kayla Jones 

would use the methamphetamine. Jones testified that she frequently observed Young and Hunt 

enter a tarped-off area in the home, where she assumed they were cooking methamphetamine 

because of the supplies they took into the area and the subsequent odor. 

 In November 2014, a person who had consumed methamphetamine at Hunt’s house 

informed the Edmore Police that Hunt was operating a methamphetamine laboratory in his home. 

The Central Michigan Enforcement Team executed a search warrant. Detective Matt Buter 

testified that the search uncovered a one-pot reaction vessel used 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 manufacturing methamphetamine. 
-2- 

Detective Buter also testified that he found a hydrogen generator, a blender, and coffee filters, all 

of which are also used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine. 

 The prosecution presented additional evidence and testimony. The jury found Hunt 

guilty as previously described. Hunt now appeals, contending that his convictions of both 

operating or maintaining a methamphetamine laboratory under MCL 333.7401c(1)(a) and 

owning or possessing chemicals or laboratory equipment under MCL 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 presents a question of constitutional 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 chemicals or laboratory 

equipment for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine to maintain 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 Michigan 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 Constitution contains a parallel 

provision that this Court construes 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 Blockburger1

 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 statutes, this Court must determine whether the offenses have the 

same elements. Ream, 481 Mich at 240. If each offense requires proof of a fact that the other 

does not, multiple convictions do not violate a defendant’s right against double jeopardy. Id. at 

227-228. This is true even if there is a substantial overlap between 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 variety of conduct, including the conduct 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 manufacture a 

controlled substance in violation of [MCL 333.7401] or a counterfeit substance or 

a controlled substance analogue in violation of [MCL 333.7402]. 

(b) Own or possess any chemical or any laboratory equipment that he or she 

knows or has reason to know is to be used for the purpose of manufacturing a 

controlled substance in violation of [MCL 333.7401] or a counterfeit substance or 

a controlled substance analogue in violation 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) violated his right against double 

jeopardy. In Meshell, the defendant was convicted of operating a methamphetamine laboratory 

under both a general sentencing provision and an enhanced sentencing provision for doing so 

near a residence. Id. at 618. In that case, all the elements of operating a methamphetamine 

laboratory generally were encompassed within the statute the prohibited doing so within 500 feet 

of a residence. Id. at 631. 

 This Court’s Meshell decision is distinguishable from the facts in this case. Relevant to 

this case, MCL 333.7401c(1)(a) prohibits a person from owning, possessing, or using a structure 

that he or she knows is to be used to manufacture a controlled substance. MCL 333.7401c(1)(b) 

prohibits a person from owning or possessing any chemical or laboratory equipment that he or 

she knows is to be used to manufacture a controlled substance. Subdivision (a) required the 

prosecution to prove that Hunt owned the house in which the methamphetamine 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 proofs the prosecution was required to present, the Blockberger test is 

satisfied. See Nutt, 469 Mich at 576. We conclude that Hunt’s convictions under both 

subdivision (a) and (b) did not violate his right against double jeopardy. 

 We affirm. 

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly 

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra