-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

April 21, 2015 

v No. 319349 

Kent Circuit Court 

JAHLEEL AMON HOSKINS, LC Nos. 13-005609-FC; 

13-005610-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: METER, P.J., and SAWYER and BOONSTRA, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals as of right his convictions by a jury in LC No. 13-005609-FC for 

assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AGBH), MCL 750.84, and in LC No. 13-005610-FH 

for perjury, MCL 767A.9(1)(b). The lower court cases were consolidated for trial. The trial 

court sentenced defendant to 25 to 75 years’ imprisonment for AGBH as a fourth-offense 

habitual offender and to 260 months’ to 50 years’ imprisonment for perjury. We affirm. 

 Defendant initiated a confrontation with the victim, Kenneth Harris, at a nightclub, and 

then stabbed the victim with a box cutter outside the club. The victim received treatment for five 

stab wounds to his chest, arm, and back. In statements under oath to police in connection with 

an investigative subpoena,1

 defendant denied being at the club on the night in question and 

denied having any sort of altercation with the victim. 

 Defendant asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court declined to 

instruct the jury on felonious assault as an alternative to the charged AGBH offense. We review 

legal questions surrounding a claim of instructional error de novo, but we review for an abuse of 

discretion a trial court’s determination that a jury instruction did not apply to the facts of the 

case. People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693, 702; 788 NW2d 399 (2010). 

 A trial court may instruct the jury on an uncharged offense only if that offense is a 

necessarily included lesser offense of the charged offense. MCL 768.32(1); People v Nyx, 479 

 

1

 The investigative subpoena was related to a murder; the parties stipulated to keep the nature of 

the main focus of the subpoena from the jury. 
-2- 

Mich 112, 119; 734 NW2d 548 (2007). We compare the elements of each offense to determine 

whether one offense is a necessarily included lesser offense of another. Id. at 117-121. When 

the elements of the greater offense completely subsume those of the lesser, the latter offense is a 

necessarily included lesser offense of the former. See id. at 118 n 13. In comparing AGBH, 

MCL 750.84(1), and felonious assault, MCL 750.82(1), it is apparent that the elements of 

felonious assault are not completely subsumed by AGBH. Felonious assault requires the use of a 

dangerous weapon while AGBH does not. Felonious assault is not a necessarily included lesser 

offense of AGBH, and thus defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on felonious assault. 

The trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on felonious assault. 

 Defendant next argues that his 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for AGBH 

pursuant to the fourth-offense habitual offender statute, MCL 769.12(1)(a), violates the doctrine 

of separation of powers because the judiciary, according to defendant, should determine the 

appropriate sentence. 

 Defendant’s issue is moot in light of his concurrent sentence of 50 to 100 years’ 

imprisonment for a plea to second-degree murder in a separate case. Defendant appealed that 

sentence to the Michigan Supreme Court, which denied leave to appeal on February 3, 2015. 

People v Hoskins, 497 Mich 955; 858 NW2d 425 (2015). Because of defendant’s concurrent 50-

year sentence in that case, reversal of his sentence in the present case would have no practical 

legal effect in the case before us, and the issue is therefore moot.2

 See People v Richmond, 486 

Mich 29, 34; 782 NW2d 187 (2010), amended on rehearing 486 Mich 1041 (2010), amended 784 

NW2d 204 (2010) (discussing mootness). Further, defendant has not shown that his separationof-powers claim presents an exception to the mootness doctrine as an issue “of public 

significance that is likely to recur, yet evade judicial review.” Id. (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). Indeed, any defendant receiving a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence as a fourthoffense habitual offender under MCL 769.12(1)(a) could raise the same separation-of-powers 

argument. Accordingly, we decline to consider defendant’s moot claim. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Patrick M. Meter 

/s/ David H. Sawyer 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra 

 

2

 In his appellate brief, dated April 29, 2014, defendant states, in arguing against mootness, that 

he “hopes to pursue a sentencing appeal in the [other case].” As noted, the Michigan Supreme 

Court denied leave to appeal in that case on February 3, 2015.