Court Opinion

ID: 9688426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:46:44.336759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:17.236136
License: Public Domain

Hood, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. First, I would hold that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel’s closing argument was as follows:
The Court: Do you have any closing remarks to make?
*600Ms. Johnson: Yes, your Honor. I have a problem with the chain of evidence on the one officer, who seems to have changed the number, whether it was changed on his report or on the lock sealed folder.
The Court: He said he didn’t change the lock sealed folder. He said he mistyped it.
Ms. Johnson: I think that chain of evidence which is supposed to be a perfect chain in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that’s a portion of the evidence to be attributed to the crime, I think that chain has been broken on that portion which totals up to 3.43 grams. Another point, it only makes sense to me that if somebody comes in and raids a bar where drugs are found, that some of the patrons in the bar will have drugs on them and drop them on the floor and since none of the police officers saw this I think it goes to their credibility.
The Court: Are you saying that if A and b see something and c doesn’t, that c’s ability is questionable because he didn’t see what a and b claimed that they saw?
Ms. Johnson: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: I’ll accept that as argument.
Ms. Johnson: My argument is that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was more than 50 grams and I would say this hasn’t been proven.
Not only did defense counsel fail completely to pursue defendant’s claim of innocence, her argument is easily capable of being viewed as a concession that defendant possessed some amount of controlled substance less than fifty grams. I would find that counsel’s performance was deficient and that defendant was prejudiced. People v Dalessandro, 165 Mich App 569, 577; 419 NW2d 609 (1988). I would order a new trial.
In addition, I am of the opinion that the trial court erred reversibly in refusing the allow trial *601counsel to withdraw so that she could testify at trial concerning the conflicting stories which Officer Huizar told her. Although there was sortie negligence on the part of the defendant, the police officers’ credibility was certainly relevant to defendant’s defense, and defendant was deprived of the opportunity to present his defense.
Finally, I would, at the very least, remand this cause for resentencing before another judge. Defendant was sentenced to a term of seven to twenty years for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and two to four years for possession with intent to deliver marijuana. The minimum sentencing guideline range for the cocaine charge is six to twelve months. The trial judge stated the following reasons for rejecting the guidelines:
The Court: As I recall the amount of cocaine itself was over 50 grams. I believe it was 65 grams and $21,000 in cash, a little over that amount, numerous, items of jewelry, marijuana. This was kind of a big case. I gave him a break and found him guilty of possession with intent to deliver under 50 grams, but I really can’t understand the argument so much about the guidelines because this doesn’t mean anything to me at all. I don’t intend to follow it. I have reviewed the guidelines and I have looked at it and I’m rejecting it because the thing is destroying our community and the whole country in fact, cocaine, marijuana and other narcotics and I heard the case, I know what was involved in it and the final responsibility is mine as far as the sentencing is concerned and I’m not going to just drop behind a guideline that was calculated by some individual totally unknown to me and abdicate my responsibility, but considering the amount of dope that was involved, the fact that this was an ongoing enterprise, it wasn’t something that happened that day, this was an ongoing enterprise and the defendant only decided to change his ways because of this particular *602incident. He was arrested and they found the dope in there. So he stopped, of course.
The sentence for over 50 grams I believe the minimum is ten years and the maximum would be life. I believe it is a minimum of ten and maximum of life. Under 50 grams it’s up to 20 years. I’ll sentence you to serve a term of not less than seven years to 20 years for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and for possession with intent to deliver marijuana I’ll make it two to four years which will run concurrently. So I have reduced the sentence considerably, but considering the amount involved here severe action should be taken.
Although the trial judge convicted defendant of possession with intent to deliver under fifty grams of cocaine, he continuously referred to the fact that over fifty grams were seized. Furthermore, he referred to the sentence for possession with intent to deliver over fifty grams of cocaine when fashioning defendant’s sentence.
Our Supreme Court has held that a trial judge may not make an independent finding of guilt on another charge and assert that as a basis to justify a sentence, especially where a defendant has been found not guilty of the other charge. People v Grimmett, 388 Mich 590, 608; 202 NW2d 278 (1972).