-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

May 14, 2015 

v No. 320349 

Cass Circuit Court 

KALI MARIE HEFT, LC No. 13-010150-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and MARKEY and SHAPIRO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals by leave granted her sentences for her plea-based convictions of 

delivery of a controlled substance less than 50 grams, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and possession 

of a controlled substance less than 25 grams, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v). We affirm. 

 On June 5, 2012, defendant and her boyfriend delivered heroin to the victim, allegedly in 

exchange for use of the victim’s tattoo machine. Subsequently, the victim overdosed on the 

heroin and died. Defendant admitted to the drug transaction and pleaded guilty to above crimes. 

 Defendant first argues that the trial court improperly scored offense variables 3 and 19. 

Defendant has waived her claims of scoring error because she entered into a sentencing 

agreement. She agreed to a minimum sentence that fell within the guidelines range of 29 to 51 

months or higher and that was to be equivalent to a delivery of heroin sentence entered in the 

Berrien Circuit Court. See People v Blount, 197 Mich App 174, 175; 494 NW2d 829 (1992) 

(when a defendant receives exactly the sentence to which he previously had agreed to, he may 

not challenge that sentence unless he makes an effort to withdraw the plea agreement); see also 

People v Ward, 206 Mich App 38, 43; 520 NW2d 363 (1994) (applying the Blount waiver rule). 

Moreover, even if the sentence exceeded properly scored guidelines, “a defendant waives 

appellate review of a sentence that exceeds the guidelines by understandingly and voluntarily 

entering into a plea agreement to accept [a] specific sentence.” People v Wiley, 472 Mich 153, 

154; 693 NW2d 800 (2005). Because the issue is waived, we do not consider it. 

 Defendant also argues that her convictions violate the double jeopardy clauses of both the 

United States and Michigan Constitutions. Specifically, defendant argues that she received 

multiple punishments for the same offense (i.e. possession and delivery of heroin). Unpreserved 

double jeopardy claims are reviewed for plain error affecting a defendant’s substantial rights. 

People v McGee, 280 Mich App 680, 682; 761 NW2d 743 (2008). 
-2- 

 Both the United States and Michigan constitutions prohibit a person from twice being 

placed in jeopardy for the same offense. US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 15; People v 

Nutt, 469 Mich 565, 574; 677 NW2d 1 (2004). To determine whether convicting defendant of 

both possession of heroin and delivery of heroin violates the double jeopardy clause, this Court 

applies the “same elements” test. Id. at 575-576; People v Smith, 478 Mich 292, 295-2; 733 

NW2d 351 (2007) (applying the Blockburger 1 “same elements” test to the multiple-punishment 

prong of the Double Jeopardy Clause). “Under the Blockburger ‘same elements’ test, two 

offenses are not the ‘same offense’ if each requires proof of an element that the other does not.” 

People v Chambers, 277 Mich App 1, 5; 742 NW2d 610 (2007). 

 The elements of delivering less than 50 grams of heroin are: (1) defendant’s delivery (2) 

of less than 50 grams (3) of heroin or a mixture containing heroin (4) with knowledge that she 

was delivering heroin. People v Collins, 298 Mich App 458, 462; 828 NW2d 392 (2012). The 

elements of possession of less than 25 grams of heroin are: (1) the defendant knowingly 

possessed a controlled substance; (2) the substance was heroin, and (3) the substance was in a 

mixture that weighed less than twenty-five grams. MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v). 

 Applying the same-elements test to the present case, we find that defendant’s convictions 

do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because they do not require proof of the same 

elements. The delivery charge requires the element of delivery that the possession charge does 

not. Chambers, 277 Mich App at 5. Similarly, the possession charge requires an element that 

the delivery charge does not, which is possession. MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v); see also People v 

Binder, 215 Mich App 30, 35-36; 544 NW2d 714 (1996), vacated in part on other grounds 453 

Mich 913 (1996). Accordingly, defendant’s convictions do not violate the double jeopardy 

clauses of the United States Constitution and Michigan Constitution. 

 We affirm. 

/s/ Jane M. Beckering 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

 

1

 See Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299, 304; 52 S Ct 180; 76 L Ed 306 (1932).