Opinion ID: 842329
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: michigan's probation system

Text: This differs from Michigan's probation system. Michigan has no statute equivalent to 18 USC 3583. Rather than facing a new sentence set by statute specifically for the probation violation, a Michigan defendant is merely resentenced under the guidelines. Hendrick, 472 Mich. at 560, 697 N.W.2d 511. Therefore, a Michigan defendant does not face an increased maximum in every case. A Michigan court can move a defendant out of an intermediate sanction cell after probation only by making judicial findings of fact using a preponderance of the evidence standard. Again, because these findings of fact increase the defendant's statutory maximum sentence, they violate Blakely's bright-line rule. Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 868. A Michigan court imposing prison after a probation violation in an intermediate sanction cell case equates to a federal court imposing a sentence exceeding that allowed by 18 U.S.C. 3583 for revocation of supervised release. In both cases, the sentencing court is limited to the maximum sentence set by the Legislature. And in both instances, the imposition of a longer sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. A similar distinction exists between the federal probation system and the Michigan probation system. Unlike a Michigan probationer, a federal probationer who violates the conditions of probation is not resentenced under the federal sentencing guidelines. Rather, the court must refer to a nonbinding policy statement released by the United States Sentencing Commission. United States v. Goffi, 446 F.3d 319, 322 (C.A.2, 2006). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained why Blakely does not apply to sentencing after a federal probation violation: The statutory scheme thus requires a sentencing court to consider a variety of factors, including the non-binding policy statements applicable to probation violations, in determining an appropriate sentence. Nowhere, however, does it require a court to sentence within the Guidelines range for the underlying conviction in determining punishment for separate and distinct malfeasance by the defendant  violation of probation. . . . United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Cir.1997) (Because there are no guidelines for sentencing on revocation of probation, and because the district court was not limited to the sentencing range available at the time of the initial sentence, we find no error in the trial court's failure to employ the analysis normally required in departure case[s].). . . . [ Id. at 322-323, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (emphasis added).] The exact opposite is true in Michigan. The guidelines continue to apply to a Michigan defendant. Hendrick, 472 Mich. at 560, 697 N.W.2d 511. The sentencing court is limited to the sentence range available at the time of the initial sentence. And the probation violation is not treated as a separate malfeasance in Michigan. People v. Kaczmarek, 464 Mich. 478, 483-484, 628 N.W.2d 484 (2001). These fundamental differences between Michigan's system and the federal system mandate different results in applying Blakely 's bright-line rule. Because none of the factors relied on by the federal courts exists in Michigan. Blakely continues to apply after probation revocation in Michigan. This completely undermines the majority's argument that, because of the possibility of probation as an intermediate sanction, intermediate sanction cells produce a minimum rather than a maximum sentence. [26] Further undermining the majority's theory is the fact that, in practice, Michigan treats intermediate sanction cell sentences as maximum sentences. When a defendant receives an intermediate sanction that includes only a jail sentence, he or she faces that sentence and nothing more. A defendant who receives an 11-month jail sentence is released from supervision at the end of 11 months. The court does not review the case after 11 months to determine if more incarceration is warranted. Simply, the defendant finishes the sentence and is released from jail. Therefore, an intermediate sanction cell sentence that includes a jail term is treated just like any other maximum sentence. In Harper, the majority further argues that intermediate sanctions must be minimum sentences because a defendant subject to them can be given a sentence of probation with jail. It argues that recognizing that intermediate sanction cell sentences are statutory maximum sentences will limit the effectiveness of imposing such sentences. Although it is true that MCL 769.31(b)( iv ) allows for intermediate sanction cell sentences that include both probation and jail, the majority's reliance on this point is irrelevant. The Legislature has determined that a sentence of 12 months in jail is an appropriate statutory maximum sentence for defendants who merit an intermediate sanction. [27] Our constitution vests the Legislature with the ultimate authority to set criminal penalties. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 45; People v. Hegwood, 465 Mich. 432, 436, 636 N.W.2d 127 (2001). The Legislature inserted the 12-month limit on jail sentences in MCL 769.34(4)(a). Only the Legislature, not this Court, may increase this limit. Someone who believes that the 12-month cap is insufficient can petition the Legislature to amend the statute. But the Court cannot ignore the statutory maximum sentence and a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights with regard to it because the Court finds the statutory penalty insufficient. For example, those who believe that 12 months is insufficient incarceration to punish probation violators could petition the Legislature to change Michigan's probation system to mimic the federal system. The Legislature could follow the lead of Goffi and treat a probation violation as a separate malfeasance. It could make probation violation subject, not to the guidelines for the underlying offense, but to independent punishment. See Goffi, 446 F.3d at 322-323; Pena, 125 F.3d at 287. If the Legislature effected such a change, it could eliminate the Sixth Amendment violation now lurking in the Michigan system. But, again, this decision must be left to the Legislature. Ultimately, and most importantly, the majority cannot disregard the Sixth Amendment simply because it is convenient for purposes of the status quo or because it comports with legislative intent. Blakely specifically rejected any such approach: Ultimately, our decision cannot turn on whether or to what degree trial by jury impairs the efficiency or fairness of criminal justice. One can certainly argue that both these values would be better served by leaving justice entirely in the hands of professionals; many nations of the world, particularly those following civil-law traditions, take just that course. There is not one shred of doubt, however, about the Framers' paradigm for criminal justice: not the civil-law ideal of administrative perfection, but the common-law ideal of limited state power accomplished by strict division of authority between judge and jury. As Apprendi held, every defendant has the right to insist that the prosecutor prove to a jury all facts legally essential to the punishment. [ Blakely, 542 U.S. at 313, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (emphasis in original).] It might be easier to continue the current modus operandi: to punish probation violators by allowing judges to increase their statutory maximum sentence by using findings of fact not supported by the violator's prior record or admissions or a jury's verdict. But the Sixth Amendment does not allow courts to disregard defendants' rights just because making a correction would require the judicial system to undergo change. Id. The majority is also incorrect in relying on its belief that the Legislature intended that probation violators be punished with more than 12 months in jail. Even if the Legislature intended that punishment, it is irrelevant. This fact was made obvious by the decision in Ring. The Arizona legislature intended that a sentence of death should be imposed in first-degree murder cases in which aggravating factors existed. Ring, 536 U.S. at 592-593, 122 S.Ct. 2428. But the Supreme Court found that this intent could not be effectuated in light of the Sixth Amendment. Notwithstanding the Arizona legislature's intent, the judicial fact-finding that increased Ring's maximum sentence to the death penalty violated Blakely's bright-line rule: If a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact  no matter how the State labels it  must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 602, 122 S.Ct. 2428. Moreover, the proper application of the Sixth Amendment to Michigan's intermediate sanction cells need not weaken an intermediate sanction cell sentence of probation with jail. The system easily could be made to comply with Blakely. For example, this Court could amend our court rules to provide for a jury to be impaneled after a court finds a probation violation. If the jury then found beyond a reasonable doubt the facts necessary to move the defendant from an intermediate sanction cell, there would be no Sixth Amendment violation. Therefore, Michigan could both retain its current probation system and protect a defendant's constitutional rights. In sum, intermediate sanction cells require a sentence that contains all the attributes of, and is in fact, a maximum sentence. This maximum sentence can be increased only by using judicial fact-finding occurring after the jury's verdict. This makes the intermediate sanction cell sentence equivalent to the middle term sentence under California's sentencing scheme. Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 868. Both sentences amount to the statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes. And a court violates the Sixth Amendment when it sentences a defendant to a sentence longer than this statutory maximum using judicial fact-finding. Id. at 870. VIII. HARMLESS ERROR The majority concludes that, even if defendant's sentence violated Blakely, the error was harmless. I disagree. While it is true that Blakely violations are subject to harmless error review, I believe that the error in this case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court concluded that Blakely errors are not structural errors requiring automatic reversal. Washington v. Recuenco, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 2553, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006). The Court reasoned that sentencing factors are the equivalent of the elements of the crime, which must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 2552. `[A]n instruction that omits an element of the offense does not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.' Id. at 2551, quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (emphasis in original). Given that the failure to present a sentencing factor to a jury is the equivalent of the failure to submit an element of the offense, it cannot be a structural error. Recuenco, 126 S.Ct. at 2552. The majority reviews this issue under a plain error standard because defendant did not raise a constitutional challenge at sentencing. But the trial court sentenced defendant before the United States Supreme Court decided Blakely. Given that Blakely was a seminal case and significantly clarified Sixth Amendment rights, I believe that it is excusable for defendant not to have raised the issue before Blakely was decided. The appropriate standard of review is whether the omission of an element of the offense is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Neder, 527 U.S. at 18-19, 119 S.Ct. 1827. Of course, safeguarding the jury guarantee will often require that a reviewing court conduct a thorough examination of the record. If, at the end of that examination, the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error  for example, where the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence sufficient to support a contrary finding  it should not find the error harmless. [ Id. at 19, 119 S.Ct. 1827.] This case involves three specific findings of fact. For OV 1, the court found that a weapon, other than a gun or knife, touched the victim. For OV 2, it found that defendant possessed a potentially lethal weapon. And for OV 3, it found that the victim suffered a life threatening or permanent incapacitating injury. None of these findings is an element of the charged offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. MCL 750.84. Therefore, the jury would have had to make special findings of fact to support an increase in the maximum sentence in this case. Michigan has no procedure for criminal juries to use to make such special findings. [28] See MCR 6.420. [29] This procedural deficiency is significant. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the lack of a procedure enabling a jury to make a finding suggests that a defendant will succeed in demonstrating the Blakely violation was not harmless. Recuenco, 126 S.Ct. at 2550. In this case, the lack of a procedure renders more difficult the prosecution's burden of showing that the error was harmless. [30] Both OV 1 and OV 2 deal with possession of a weapon. The majority argues that the evidence that defendant possessed a weapon was overwhelming and uncontested. But this argument is unfair. At trial, defendant had no opportunity or reason to contest the evidence regarding the weapon. It was not an element of the offense or relevant to defendant's defense strategy. For defendant to have objected to the existence of a weapon would have been distracting, irrelevant, and potentially confusing to the jury. Given that there was no reason or opportunity to present evidence on this point, defendant can hardly be faulted for not doing so. Moreover, the evidence regarding the use of a weapon was in fact contested. One key prosecution witness, Gregory Thompson, testified that defendant did not use a weapon but beat the complainant with his fists. [31] And no weapon was ever found at the scene of the offense. This evidence contradicts the conclusion that a weapon was involved. Because of this, the prosecution cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have made the findings of fact necessary to score OV 1 and OV 2. OV 3 deals with the injury suffered by the complainant. To warrant 25 points under OV 3, there must be a [l]ife threatening or permanent incapacitating injury. . . . MCL 777.33(1)(c). While there was evidence that the complainant's injuries were significant, there was no specific evidence that they were life threatening or permanently incapacitating. This lack of evidence precludes a conclusion that the error was harmless. No medical expert testified at trial. And defendant's medical records were not submitted to the jury. Again, this is because neither defendant nor the prosecution had any reason to argue these issues at trial. Without some medical evidence of permanent incapacitation or that the injuries were life threatening, a jury could not have made such a determination beyond a reasonable doubt. [32] Hence, the prosecution cannot carry its burden to prove that the Blakely error occurring in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Neder, 527 U.S. at 18-19, 119 S.Ct. 1827. [33] There is insufficient evidence that the jury would have made the findings of fact necessary to score the OVs. This is especially true in light of the fact that there are no procedures in place for a jury to make special findings in a criminal trial in Michigan. Therefore, the prosecution did not carry its burden. Id.; Recuenco, 126 S.Ct. at 2550. Defendant must be resentenced in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment. IX. CONCLUSION Although it concedes that Cunningham presented nothing new and that it must follow the precedent of the Blakely line of cases, the majority reaffirms its previous decision in this case. In essence, the majority states today that the United States Supreme Court did not comprehend the majority's previous decision and misunderstood Michigan law. The maximum sentence resulting from an intermediate sanction cell is a true statutory maximum for purposes of Cunningham. A court cannot increase this maximum sentence by scoring the OVs without violating the Sixth Amendment. Finally, the sentencing error in this case was not harmless, because the OVs were scored using facts that were not supported by overwhelming evidence. I take the Supreme Court's order for what it is: an indication that there is a Sixth Amendment problem with Michigan's sentencing guidelines. This case illustrates that a grave constitutional violation occurs in this state when Blakely is correctly applied. Specifically, the judicial fact-finding that moved defendant from an intermediate sanction cell to a straddle cell violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Defendant's sentence should be vacated, and the case should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing. The Michigan sentencing guidelines statutes should be held unconstitutional as applied in this case. [34] MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., agrees. MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J. ( dissenting ). I agree with the result advocated by Justice Kelly in her dissent because it comports with my position in this case the first time it was before this Court. See People v. McCuller, 475 Mich. 176, 214, 715 N.W.2d 798 (2006) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting). When dealing with intermediate sanctions, I believe that the requirements set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and further applied in Cunningham v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), must be followed. Thus, the trial court improperly engaged in judicial fact-finding, and this case should be remanded for resentencing.