-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

April 14, 2015 

v No. 320003 

Saginaw Circuit Court 

BRADFORD SCOTT MITCHELL, LC No. 11-035954-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: OWENS, P.J., and JANSEN and MURRAY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of manslaughter, MCL 750.321. 

He was sentenced as a second habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to serve 180 months to 706 

months in prison.1

 In January 2011, defendant believed the victim owed him five dollars and set about trying 

to recover it. Both the victim’s ex-wife and friend saw the victim on January 14, 2011, and 

witnessed or heard about defendant’s attempts to recover the money he believed he was owed. 

The victim’s ex-wife recalled at trial that defendant came to the victim’s apartment multiple 

times and banged on the doors, yelling obscenities and threatening the victim. One of the 

victim’s friends recounted that the victim was upset with defendant’s antics. 

 On January 16, 2011, the victim was found dead in his apartment. The medical examiner 

testified that he had suffered injuries to his head, neck, and back, including a skull fracture and 

five stab wounds in the back of his head and neck. Defendant was interviewed and admitted 

having been involved in a physical altercation with the victim. However, he claimed that he had 

only struck the victim in self-defense. 

 

1

 This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, we reversed defendant’s conviction of 

second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, and remanded for a new trial on grounds that the jury 

should have been instructed on voluntary manslaughter. People v Mitchell, 301 Mich App 282, 

289; 835 NW2d 615 (2013). We also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove 

that defendant was guilty of carrying a weapon with unlawful intent in violation of MCL 

750.226. Id. at 294. 
-2- 

 Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that he was denied his Sixth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights when the trial court engaged in judicial fact-finding that 

impermissibly increased his minimum sentence in violation of Alleyne v United States, 570 

US___; 133 S Ct 2151; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013) (holding that any fact that increases a mandatory 

minimum sentence is an element of a crime “that must be submitted to the jury and found 

beyond a reasonable doubt”). Defendant acknowledges that in People v Herron, 303 Mich App 

392, 405; 845 NW2d 533 (2013), this Court held that Michigan’s sentencing guidelines are 

consistent with Alleyne and do not violate the Sixth Amendment. He also acknowledges that 

Herron is binding precedent, MCR 7.215(J)(1), but urges this Court to conclude that Herron was 

wrongly decided and call for a conflict panel pursuant to MCR 7.215(J). Our Supreme Court has 

held Herron’s application for leave to appeal in abeyance pending its decision in People v 

Lockridge (Supreme Court Docket No. 149073). People v Herron, ___ Mich ___; 846 NW2d 

924 (2014). We decline to call for a conflict panel because the issue is of significant import and 

is already slated to be resolved by our Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules, we are 

bound by Herron. 

 Defendant also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial 

court’s judicial fact-finding at sentencing. However, in light of defense counsel’s subsequent 

motion for resentencing based on Alleyne, we do not find that defense counsel’s performance 

was deficient. See People v Frazier, 478 Mich 231, 243; 733 NW2d 713 (2007). Further, given 

that Michigan’s sentencing guidelines do not run afoul of Alleyne, defendant cannot show that 

the initial failure to object was outcome determinative. Id. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Donald S. Owens 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen 

/s/ Christopher M. Murray