e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 81506
Opinion Date : 04/25/2024
e-Journal Date : 05/06/2024
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Espie
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Swartzle, Servitto, and Garrett
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Resentencing of a defendant convicted of first-degree murder committed when he was 16; Miller v Alabama; Corrections to the PSIR; People v Maben; MCL 769.25a; Judicial disqualification; People v Jackson; Court-appointed attorney fees; Life without parole (LWOP)

Summary

Concluding there was merit in some of defendant’s challenges to the PSIR used in his resentencing, the court reversed in part the order resentencing him to 40 to 60 years for a first-degree murder committed when he was 16, and remanded. It rejected his claim of judicial bias and denied his request for remand to a different judge. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a new PSIR and requiring that a report prepared about crimes he committed after the murder (the Thompson report) “be attached to his PSIR in its original form, without addressing” his challenges to that report. The court held that he was “entitled to a remand for correction of the PSIR, including the updates the trial court already ordered, and not including the separate Thompson report.” It also agreed with defendant and the prosecution “that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his challenge to the maximum penalty reflected in the PSIR.” Given that the prosecution “withdrew its initial motion for a LWOP sentence, the maximum penalty authorized by statute was 60 years” and the PSIR should have reflected this. The court also found the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike references in the PSIR about defendant “becoming more violent before the incident” because the prosecution failed to “satisfy its burden of proving the accuracy of the allegation by a preponderance of the evidence.” But the court held that the trial court did not “abuse its discretion by including a sentence referring to defendant’s mental health and medication at the time he killed” the victim. Given the “focus on defendant’s circumstances at the time of the offense, it would be inappropriate to omit reference to [his] mental health at the time he committed the murder, and” he did not suggest the statement was inaccurate. It also was not an abuse of discretion to overrule his “challenge to statements about a misconduct ticket that [he] received in prison.” The court noted that prison “misconduct is a common topic in PSIR updates for resentencing,” and he did “not dispute that he received the misconduct ticket or the circumstances that led to” it. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering “certain updates to the education, employment, and substance-abuse sections of the PSIR.” But it erred in “ordering defendant to pay attorney fees for his original trial counsel at resentencing[.]”

Full PDF Opinion