-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

February 22, 2018

v No. 335863

Calhoun Circuit Court

CHRISTIAN DEONDRE JAM LOGAN, LC No. 2015-003643-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and BECKERING, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right, challenging the sentence he received for his assault with 

intent to rob while unarmed, MCL 750.88, jury conviction. We remand for resentencing 

consistent with this opinion.

Defendant’s conviction arises out of an attempted robbery on October 6, 2015. The 

victims, a father and son, went to Battle Creek from the Grand Rapids area to buy a car they saw 

advertised on Craigslist. The son had been communicating with the seller through a series of 

Craigslist emails. When the father and the son arrived at the house where they were supposed to 

meet the purported seller’s grandson to see the car, a man who introduced himself as the seller’s 

grandson met them in the driveway and led the father to the side of the garage to see the car for 

sale. But when the father got to the side of the garage, there was no car, and he was attacked 

from behind. Just as the son was headed to the edge of the driveway to follow his father, he was 

forced to the ground by another attacker and beat over the head by the grandson and two other 

men. Someone also maced his face. The son was able to get himself propped up enough to get 

his gun out of his pocket to shoot the two men who were not the grandson. One of those men 

was defendant.

Defendant was charged with attempted armed robbery against the father (Count I), 

attempted armed robbery against the son (Count II), and felony firearm (Count III). The jury 

acquitted defendant of all three counts, but found him guilty of the lesser included offense to 

Count II, assault with intent to rob while unarmed.

The sole argument raised by defendant on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling 

his objection and assessing 15 points for offense variable (OV) 8 when calculating his sentencing 

guidelines range. We agree.
-2-

While the sentencing guidelines are now advisory, our Supreme Court has held that the 

trial court must nonetheless score them. People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392; 870 NW2d 502 

(2015). The trial court must assess the highest number of points for all offense variables. Id. at 

392 n 28. This Court reviews the trial court’s assessments for clear error.

Under the sentencing guidelines, the circuit court’s factual determinations are 

reviewed for clear error and must be supported by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Whether the facts, as found, are adequate to satisfy the scoring 

conditions prescribed by statute, i.e., the application of the facts to the law, is a 

question of statutory interpretation, which an appellate court reviews de novo. 

[People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 438; 835 NW2d 340 (2013) (footnotes omitted).]

“A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it either lacks substantial evidence to sustain it, or if the 

reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” 

People v Mazur, 497 Mich 302, 308; 872 NW2d 201 (2015).

Offense variable 8 addresses victim asportation or captivity, MCL 777.38(1), and 

requires the assessment of 15 points if “[a] victim was asported to another place of greater 

danger or to a situation of greater danger or was held captive beyond the time necessary to 

commit the offense[.]” MCL 777.38(1)(a). In People v Barrera, 500 Mich 14; 892 NW2d 789 

(2017),

1 our Supreme Court explained:

A plain reading of asportation is this: If a victim is carried away or 

removed ‘to another place of greater danger or to a situation of greater danger,’ 

MCL 777.38(1)(a), the statutory language is satisfied. [Id. at 21.]

Thus, movement that is incidental to the offense suffices as a basis for scoring OV 8 at 15 points. 

Id. In Barrera, the defendant took the victim from the living room to the bedroom to sexually 

assault her. Id. at 21-22. Because the victim was taken to a place where the assault was less 

likely to be discovered, the location was a “place of greater danger,” making the assessment of 

15 points for OV 8 appropriate. Id. at 22.

However, to be assessed 15 points for OV 8, a defendant had to be directly responsible 

for the movement of the victim; the trial court cannot assess 15 points for OV 8 based on the 

actions of a co-offender. People v Gloster, 499 Mich 199, 206; 880 NW2d 776 (2016).

Because the Legislature has explicitly provided that all offenders in a multipleoffender situation should receive the same score for OVs 1, 2, and 3, but excluded 

that language from other OVs, we conclude that a defendant shall not have points 

 1 Although Barrera was decided after defendant’s sentencing, “[t]he general rule is that judicial 

decisions are given full retroactive effect, and complete prospective application is limited to 

decisions that overrule clear and uncontradicted caselaw.” People v Vansickle, 303 Mich App 

111, 119; 842 NW2d 289 (2013). Therefore, the interpretation of asportation in Barrera applies 

in this case.
-3-

assessed solely on the basis of his or her co-offenders’ conduct unless the OV at 

issue specifically indicates to the contrary. [Id. (footnote omitted).]

OV 8 does not specifically indicate that a defendant should receive points based on a cooffender’s conduct, so assigning points to OV 8 for conduct not attributed to defendant would be 

in error. See MCL 777.38; Gloster, 499 Mich at 206.

In this case, ample testimony established that the father was led to the side of the garage 

by the purported seller’s grandson, which was a place of greater danger because it was more 

secluded and the father was separated from his son. See MCL 777.38(1)(a); Barrera, 500 Mich 

at 21-22. Additionally, the Craigslist scheme that led the victims to the place where they were 

assaulted, a house that was dark and abandoned in a neighborhood with which the victims were 

unfamiliar, may also satisfy the asportation requirement. See id.

However, no testimony established either that defendant was involved in leading the 

father to the side of the garage or that defendant was involved in the Craigslist scheme. The 

father’s testimony established that defendant was not the purported seller’s grandson who led 

him to the side of the garage, and defendant could not have even been present for the father’s 

assault because the father heard the gunshot that hit defendant while a different man was on top 

of him. Several investigating officers, crime scene technicians, and forensic laboratory 

technicians testified at defendant’s trial, but not one indicated that defendant was in any way 

connected to the Craigslist messages.

To the extent that the trial court made a factual finding that defendant lured the father to 

the side of the garage, that finding is clearly erroneous because there was not any evidence, let 

alone substantial evidence, to support that finding. See Mazur, 497 Mich at 308. To the extent 

that the trial court applied the correct facts but assessed 15 points based on either the conduct of 

the purported seller’s grandson who led the father to the side of the garage or the man who 

assaulted the father once he got to the side of the garage, the trial court erred in its application of 

the statute. See Gloster, 499 Mich at 206; Hardy, 494 Mich at 438.

Following his conviction, defendant was sentenced for violating MCL 750.88, which is a 

Class C felony under the sentencing guidelines. MCL 777.16d. Defendant’s total PRV score 

was assessed at 20 points and his total OV score was 60 points. These scores placed defendant at 

a PRV Level C and OV Level V on the Class C sentencing grid, MCL 777.64. Consequently, 

defendant’s recommended minimum sentence range under the legislative guidelines was 

determined to be 36 to 71 months. See MCl 777.64. However, because the trial court erred in 

assessing 15 points for OV 8, defendant’s total OV score should have been 45 points, placing 

defendant at an OV Level IV. See id. Defendant’s corrected recommended minimum sentence 

range would be 29 to 57 months. See id.

“[A] defendant is entitled to resentencing when the trial court erred in scoring an offense 

variable, and the error affected the statutory sentencing guidelines range.” People v Jackson, 

487 Mich 783, 793; 790 NW2d 340 (2010). Even if “the defendant’s minimum sentence [is] still 

within the guidelines range . . . a remand for resentencing [is] required . . . .” Id., citing People v

Francisco, 474 Mich 82, 91-92; 711 NW2d 44 (2006). In this case, the trial court erred in 

scoring OV 8, and the error affected defendant’s sentencing guidelines range. Although 
-4-

defendant’s minimum sentence is still within the corrected guidelines range, defendant is entitled 

to resentencing.

Remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra

/s/ Jane M. Beckering