e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 82621
Opinion Date : 11/12/2024
e-Journal Date : 11/19/2024
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Stiles
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Boonstra, Murray, and Cameron
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Sentencing; Scoring of 15 points for OV 19; Use of force; People v McGraw; People v Smith; “Force”; Preoffense conduct

Summary

Concluding that the trial court properly assessed 15 points for OV 19, the court affirmed. Defendant was convicted of resisting and obstructing a police officer and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 42 months to 15 years for each conviction. He argued that the trial court erroneously assessed 15 points for OV 19 by classifying his “slipping his hand from handcuffs as a use of force, and by considering conduct that occurred before the sentencing offense.” The court concluded that to “the extent that the trial court considered preoffense conduct in its scoring of OV 19, it erred.” In this case, troopers maced him “in a separate incident before he slipped from his handcuffs and fled postarrest, which formed the basis for both counts of his resisting and obstructing charges against each trooper. At sentencing, the investigating case manager, the prosecutor, and the trial court mentioned in support of scoring 15 points that troopers maced defendant.” The court held that “McGraw and Smith interpreted the language of OV 19 to include postoffense conduct but not preoffense conduct, and therefore, the trial court erred in its scoring assessment by considering that defendant had been maced.” However, it concluded that “aside from considering the preoffense conduct, the trial court’s assessment of OV 19 at 15 points was supported by a preponderance of the evidence because defendant’s actions constituted a use of force.” The court held that while “handcuffed with Michigan State Police-issued handcuffs, defendant used his right hand to slip the cuff off of his left wrist in order to escape police custody. The minimal amount of force used in opening a camper door is similar to the amount of force defendant likely exerted against the handcuffs when he slipped his wrist from them. There is no requirement for the property to be damaged under OV 19 as a prerequisite to assess 15 points.” Therefore, his “exertion of force against police handcuffs was sufficient to assess 15 points under OV 19.”

Full PDF Opinion