Court Opinion

ID: 9925245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 06:06:13.078191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:47.449777
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     January 18, 2024
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 363199
                                                                     Isabella Circuit Court
TIMOTHY JOSEPH WALKER,                                               LC No. 2021-000428-FH

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and O’BRIEN and SWARTZLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Defendant was selling drugs out of his hotel room, and he later pleaded guilty to possession
of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced defendant to five to 20 years imprisonment after
assessing five points on offense variable (OV) 15. We affirm.

        The Michigan State Police received a tip that there had been several individuals who visited
defendant’s hotel room over the course of a month and that the individuals would only stay for a
short period of time. The police detained and searched defendant when he checked out of his hotel
room, and they found three digital scales, several Ziploc bags, and 23.4 grams of
methamphetamine in defendant’s backpack, as well as $594 in cash on defendant.

         The police subsequently interviewed and interrogated defendant, and he admitted that he
had 23 grams of methamphetamine in his backpack. Defendant told the police that he was
“trafficking narcotics” for a person to whom he owed a large drug-related debt, and he had planned
“to sell all the crystal methamphetamine in his possession for $550” on the day that he was arrested.
Further, he had been receiving approximately three ounces of methamphetamine each week from
his supplier to later re-sell.

       Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i), as
a second or subsequent offense, MCL 333.7413(1), in exchange for the dismissal of additional
charges. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court doubled the minimum guideline range under
MCL 333.7413(1) and sentenced defendant to five to 20 years in prison.

                                                -1-
        Defendant moved to be resentenced on the basis that the trial court erroneously assessed
OV 15 because there was no direct evidence that defendant was involved in drug trafficking. The
trial court denied defendant’s motion because defendant had admitted to the police that he had
been dealing drugs to pay off his large drug-related debt.

       Defendant now appeals by leave granted, as instructed on remand by our Supreme Court.
People v Walker, ___ Mich ___; 986 NW2d 906 (2023).

        This Court reviews de novo whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the
sentencing guidelines. People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120, 123; 771 NW2d 655 (2009). When
reviewing a trial court’s scoring decision, the trial court’s “factual determinations are reviewed for
clear error and must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” People v Hardy, 494 Mich
430, 438; 835 NW2d 340 (2013). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, after review of the
entire record, an appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” People v Antwine, 293 Mich App 192, 194; 809 NW2d 439 (2011) (cleaned up). “The
trial court may rely on reasonable inferences arising from the record evidence to sustain the scoring
of an offense variable.” People v Horton, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket
No. 360726); slip op at 2 (cleaned up).

        Defendant argues that the trial court erred in scoring OV 15, which controls “aggravated
controlled substance offenses.” MCL 777.45(1). Five points may be assessed for OV 15 if the
offense “involved the delivery or possession with intent to deliver marihuana or any other
controlled substance or a counterfeit controlled substance or possession of controlled substances
or counterfeit controlled substances having a value or under such circumstances as to indicate
trafficking.” MCL 777.45(1)(h). In this context, “ ‘[d]eliver’ means the actual or constructive
transfer of a controlled substance from 1 individual to another regardless of remuneration,” MCL
777.45(2)(a), and “ [t]rafficking’ means the sale or delivery of controlled substances or counterfeit
controlled substances on a continuing basis to 1 or more other individuals for further distribution,”
MCL 777.45(2)(c).

       In People v Jackson, 497 Mich 857, 858; 852 NW2d 897 (2014), our Supreme Court
explained:

        A proper reading of MCL 777.45(1)(h) reveals two alternative bases for scoring
        [OV 15] at five points: (1) when the offense involved the delivery or possession
        with intent to deliver marihuana or any other controlled substance or counterfeit
        controlled substance; and (2) when the offense involved possession of controlled
        substances or counterfeit controlled substances having a value or under such
        circumstances as to indicate trafficking.

         In this case, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court assessing five points for
OV 15 because defendant possessed methamphetamine “under such circumstances as to indicate
trafficking.” Id. Defendant had $594 in cash, 23 grams of methamphetamine, digital scales, and
Ziploc bags when he was arrested. Defendant admitted, moreover, that he was regularly receiving
methamphetamine from a supplier to pay off his large drug-related debt, and that he had planned
to sell all of his methamphetamine on the day that he was arrested by the police.

                                                  -2-
       Accordingly, considering the totality of these circumstances, the trial court could
reasonably infer that defendant was involved in the trafficking of drugs by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Horton, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 2.

       Affirmed.

                                                            /s/ Mark T. Boonstra
                                                            /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
                                                            /s/ Mark T. Boonstra

                                               -3-