The Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with assault with intent to murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. During his trial, the prosecution’s case hinged on testimony from the alleged victim; he testified that the defendant shot at him numerous times following an altercation. A jury found the defendant guilty, and as he was a third-offense habitual offender, he was sentenced to 20 to 60 years in prison for his assault crime and two years for his firearm offense.

Reportedly, almost ten years after his conviction, the defendant moved for relief from judgment, his second motion for relief, on the grounds that the victim completed an affidavit in which he recanted his testimony. The trial court initially granted a stay but later denied the defendant’s motion following the victim’s death. The defendant appealed.

Reversing a Conviction Due to Newly Discovered Evidence

On appeal, the court found no error with the trial court’s ruling. The court explained that a defendant can file a second motion for relief from judgment but only if there is newly discovered evidence they did not have when they filed the first motion, or there has been an intervening change in the law. As such, a defendant filing a second motion for relief must show that one of these exceptions applies before the court will consider their motion.

When a defendant files a second motion for relief based on newly discovered evidence, they will only be granted a new trial if they can establish: that the evidence was newly discovered; the new evidence is not cumulative; they could not, using reasonable diligence, have found and presented the evidence at trial; and, the new evidence makes it probable that a different outcome would occur on a retrial.

In order to determine whether newly discovered evidence would result in a different outcome, the court must first evaluate whether the evidence is credible. In the subject case, the court ultimately found that there was no way to corroborate the trustworthiness of the witness’ affidavit. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Talk to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If the victim of a crime recants their testimony following their alleged assailant’s conviction, it may be cause for vacating a guilty verdict. If you are charged with assault or another crime, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can inform you of your possible defenses and help you to pursue the best legal result available under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant tackled his girlfriend, bit her neck, threw her to the ground, and pulled out her hair. When she proceeded into their house, he followed her and threatened to kill her and her disabled brother, whom the defendant also attacked. The defendant was charged with multiple assault crimes. The defendant presented an insanity defense at trial, averring that he had post-traumatic stress disorder and snapped prior to the incident.

Allegedly, the prosecution objected to the introduction of the defendant’s expert witness, a psychologist, on the grounds that his opinion was based on statements the defendant made outside of the doctor-patient relationship and therefore constituted hearsay. The court ruled that the facts on which the expert based his opinion had to be introduced into evidence, which ultimately resulted in the defendant testifying and being subjected to cross-examination. A jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, after which he appealed, arguing his attorney was ineffective regarding the presentation of his insanity defense.

Presentation of an Insanity Defense

On appeal, the court agreed with the defendant’s assertion, vacated his convictions, and remanded the matter for a new trial. While the court agreed with the trial court that the defendant’s statements were not made for the purposes of treatment and therefore were not admissible as statements made in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, the background information provided to the expert regarding the defendant’s medical history was not hearsay, as they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

The defendant’s attorney failed to argue that such statements were admissible for evaluation of the defendant, though, and instead required the defendant to testify. The court found that this negated the defendant’s entire theory of his case, and therefore, his attorney’s performance fell below the standard of reasonableness of a professional. As such, the court vacated the defendant’s conviction.

Talk to a Dedicated Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

While people charged with assault crimes are not required to produce evidence in their defense, in some cases, offering an affirmative defense might help them avoid a conviction. If you are charged with assault or any other crime, it is advisable to talk to an attorney about your options for pursuing a just outcome. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a dedicated Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can examine the facts of your case and develop arguments designed to help you seek the best legal outcome available. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was involved in an altercation with the male and female victims, his neighbors, when he was at their home. He threw a full beer can at the female victim, which hit her in the face, and then left the property. The victims called 911, and after the police arrived, they observed the defendant breaking things in his apartment. He ultimately had to be subdued and sedated.

It is reported that after the defendant’s release from jail, he went on a rampage that ultimately resulted in the death of the male victim. He was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, assault and battery, and numerous other crimes. A jury convicted him following a trial during which he represented himself with standby counsel. He appealed, arguing he was entitled to a reversal due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Right to Self-Representation

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. In doing so, it explained that the defendant waived his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by choosing to represent himself. The court elaborated that the Michigan Constitution and the United States Constitution both grant criminal defendants the right to represent themselves. While the right to self-representation is not explicit in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the right to personally defend oneself is implied by the statutory language. The Michigan Constitution expressly grants such rights.

The court noted, though, that in order to assert the right of self-representation, a defendant has to waive the right to counsel and must do so intelligently and knowingly, with adequate awareness of the relevant circumstances. In the subject case, the defendant did not argue that his waiver of the right to counsel was invalid; instead, he asserted that his decision to represent himself with standby counsel should be treated as if he had an appointed attorney. The court disagreed, noting that a defendant has the right to counsel or to represent himself but not the right to both. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Confer with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Although criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves, they generally should not exercise that right as it often leads to unfavorable results. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is wise to confer with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and resources needed to help you seek a good outcome, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with numerous carjacking offenses due to his participation in a carjacking scheme. The case proceeded to trial. When the prosecution presented its case, it did not indicate that the defendant had directly participated in the carjackings; instead, it argued that he sought and obtained the vehicles that were stolen.

It is reported that the court instructed the jury that they could find the defendant guilty on a coconspirator theory of liability. In other words, the court explained that all parties to a conspiracy are responsible for the acts each party commits, as long as they are undertaken to advance the conspiracy and happened after the party joined the conspiracy. The jury convicted the defendant, and he was sentenced under the scheme pertaining to crimes of violence. He appealed.

Violent Crimes as Defined by Federal Law

The defendant set forth numerous arguments on appeal, including the assertion that conspiracy to commit carjackings did not constitute a crime of violence. The court disagreed, holding that because the defendant’s convictions were predicated on his substantive carjacking crimes rather than his conspiracy crimes, he was not entitled to relief.

The court explained that under the applicable law, an offense will only constitute a crime of violence if the use of force is an element of the offense. Further, the court clarified that conspiracy convictions do not qualify as crimes of violence. To evaluate whether a crime is a crime of violence, the courts look at the statutory definition of the crime rather than the manner in which it was committed.

In the subject case, the court found that carjacking was a violent crime after assessing the statutory elements. The court noted that while the jury was instructed on a conspiracy theory of liability, it did not form the basis of the defendant’s convictions. Instead, he was convicted of carjacking. As such, the court upheld the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Skilled Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Violent crimes carry substantial penalties, but merely because the government charges a person with a crime does not mean that the evidence against them is sufficient to obtain a conviction. If you are accused of a violent offense, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skilled Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the knowledge and experience needed to help you seek a favorable outcome, and if you hire him, he will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He entered a guilty plea, after which he was convicted and sentenced. During his sentencing hearing, he was deemed a career offender under the ACCA due to a prior conviction for third-degree home invasion. He appealed, arguing that his prior offense was not a violent felony as defined by the ACCA, and therefore, his sentence was improper.

Violent Felonies Under the ACCA

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. In so doing, it explained that under the meaning, as defined by the ACCA, a conviction will be considered a violent felony if the statutory elements are either more narrow or the same as those of the generic violent felony offense. In order to conduct this assessment, which is referred to as the categorical approach, the court must only assess the statutory language. In other words, it must ignore the actual facts that led to the defendant being charged with the underlying offense.

The court elaborated that in order for a defendant to show that a prior conviction under a state statute was not a violent felony as defined by the ACCA, they must demonstrate a realistic probability that the state would apply the statute in question to behavior that falls outside of the generic definition of the crime.

In the subject case, the court ultimately found that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Michigan’s third-degree home invasion law touched on conduct that fell outside of the generic burglary offense, as he was required to do to show that it was not a violent felony under the ACCA. As such, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Talk to an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a violent crime may not only result in a lengthy prison sentence, but it may also impact how a person is punished for future crimes. If you are charged with a felony, it is important to talk to an attorney about your options for protecting your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can assess the circumstances surrounding your arrest and help you to seek the best outcome possible under the facts of your case. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant’s home was searched pursuant to a warrant. The information used to obtain the warrant was provided by a confidential source. During the search, the police found illegal narcotics and firearms. The defendant then moved to suppress the evidence found during the search on the grounds that the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Probable Cause for Issuing a Warrant

Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause and must specifically describe the place to be searched and the times that are likely to be found during that search. The courts will find probable cause when it is illustrated that there is a fair likelihood that evidence of a crime or illegal items will be found in a particular place.

The courts determine whether a search warrant establishes probable cause by examining the totality of the circumstances. In some instances, like the present case, the search warrant will include information obtained via a confidential source. If the constitutionality rests, all or in part, on the confidential information, the reliability of that information must be sufficiently corroborated through independent means or clearly demonstrated

In the subject case, the defendant argued that because the confidential source that provided information for the warrant was not reliable, the warrant lacked probable cause, and the search of his home was an illegal search and seizure. The court disagreed, noting that the confidential source was known to police and in their custody, which gave their statements greater weight. Further, the source provided substantial detail about the defendant’s home and the weapons he had, which added to his credibility. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion.

Meet with a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If the police violate a person’s rights during the investigation of a crime, any evidence found during that investigation may be inadmissible. If you are accused of violating the law, it is smart to meet with an attorney to discuss what measures you can take to protect your interests. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to provide you with a good chance of obtaining a favorable outcome. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

Factual History of the Case

It is reported that in 1997 the defendant broke into a storage facility and robbed ten different units. The government charged him with ten counts of burglary; he pleaded guilty and was convicted. Seventeen years later, an officer who was in the defendant’s home saw the defendant with a rifle in his possession. The defendant was subsequently charged with the federal offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury found the defendant guilty and during sentencing, he was deemed an armed career criminal under the Act, because of his ten prior robbery convictions. The court sentenced the defendant to 15 years in prison, and he appealed. The appellate court affirmed his sentence, and the defendant sought certiorari review.

Prior Offenses Under the Career Criminal Act

The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether crimes that a defendant commits in sequence during a single incident happen on separate occasions for the purposes of imposing a sentence enhancement under the Act. The Court found that such crimes did not constitute separate occurrences, and reversed the lower court ruling.

The Court explained that pursuant to the Act, defendants convicted of three or more specified felonies that occurred on different occasions are deemed armed career criminals. The Court also pointed out that the defendant’s crimes happened in a single, uninterrupted course of conduct.

The Court found that the word occasion should be interpreted in a manner consistent with its ordinary use. In other words, a person may say that the defendant committed numerous offenses on one occasion, but not that he burglarized a storage unit on numerous occasions. The Court explained that its understanding of the word occasion was supported by the history of the Act, as Congress modified the Act to include a provision stating that the prior offenses must happen on occasions that are distinct from one another.

Talk to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

People accused of violent crimes may receive substantial penalties if they are convicted. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is in your best interest to talk to a lawyer about your possible defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney who is adept at helping people charged with crimes fight to protect their interests. You can reach Mr. Bernstein via the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendants, husband, and wife, were charged with first and third-degree home invasion. The charges arose out of an incident in which they, along with the husband’s mother, went to the home of another man to pick up the mother’s partner. When they arrived, the man reportedly opened the door briefly and then grabbed the partner and dragged her into another room.

Reportedly, the husband and wife heard the partner screaming for help and entered the home without the man’s permission. A physical altercation ensued. A jury convicted the defendants as charged. They appealed, arguing that their attorneys were ineffective because they failed to request a jury instruction on the defense of others. The intermediate appellate court affirmed their convictions, and they appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Force Used in the Defense of Others

On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the defendants were prejudiced and received ineffective assistance from their attorneys and therefore remanded the case for a new trial. The court explained that under Michigan’s defense of others doctrine, a person could use force to defend another individual if they reasonably believe that the individual is in immediate danger of harm and the force is necessary to prevent that harm. If the attack reasonably appears to be deadly, deadly force is permissible.

Whether the defense of others doctrine applies depends on the facts of the case, not the charges brought against the defendant. In the subject case, the court found that the doctrine was applicable regardless of the fact the defendants were not charged with assault crimes. The court further explained that pursuant to the Constitution, criminal defendants have the right to present a defense, and errors with regard to jury instructions can interfere with this right.

Affirmative defense instructions are not automatically given to jurors following a defendant’s request, however. Instead, the defendant bears the burden of offering evidence from which the jury could find the essential elements of the defense are present. If a criminal defendant offers such evidence, the instruction should be given. In the subject case, the defendants offered evidence that they believed their use of force was necessary to prevent harm of another, but their attorneys failed to request jury instructions on the doctrine of defense of others, which the court deemed unreasonable. Thus, it reversed their conviction.

Talk to a Seasoned Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Actions taken in self-defense are often justified under the law, and many criminal defendants who acted in the protection of themselves and others can escape convictions. If you are accused of an assault offense, you should talk to an attorney about your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a seasoned Michigan criminal defense attorney who can assess the facts of your case and gather the evidence needed to provide you with a strong chance of a favorable result. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes following a shooting death. The case proceeded to trial, and during a recess, a juror came into contact with the victim’s child’s mother in the hallway. The trial court subsequently removed the woman and all spectators from the courtroom and ordered them not to return for the remainder of the trial. The jury convicted the defendant of multiple felonies. He then appealed and moved to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing, arguing in part that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial had been violated.

It is reported that the intermediate appellate court granted his motion. Following the evidentiary hearing, he filed a motion for a new trial which was denied on the grounds that the courtroom was not locked, it was merely cleared, and that even if it was closed, he waived the right to a public trial by failing to object. He then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court’s ruling and remanded the matter for a new trial. The Supreme Court explained that the trial court’s closure of the courtroom for almost the entire trial due to an isolated and benign interaction between a juror and an observer comprised a clear error. Further, as the deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial was a structural error, it affected the defendant’s rights as a matter of course.

The court then explained that as a structural error, the denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial presumptively impacted the defendant’s substantive rights, as it significantly affected the public reputation, fairness, and integrity of the trial. As such, it met the plain error standard’s requirements for reversal. As neither the evidence of record nor the prosecution rebutted the presumption, the court found that a reversal of the intermediate court’s ruling was warranted, and it remanded the matter for a new trial.

Confer with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Constitutional rights do not end merely because a person is accused of a crime, and if the state violates a criminal defendant’s rights during a trial, it may be grounds for reversing their conviction. If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is prudent to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney who takes pride in helping people fight to protect their liberties, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Bernstein via the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted by a jury of numerous weapons offenses and assault with intent to commit murder. The trial court deemed him a third-offense habitual offender and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 30 to 60 years, 15 to thirty years, and 34 months to 10 years for his respective crimes. He subsequently appealed, arguing in part that police seized evidence from his home without showing him a warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The state court denied his appeal, and he subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court.

Requirements for Seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus

After a criminal defendant files a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court must undertake a preliminary review to evaluate whether it is clear from the face of the petition, including any attached exhibits, that the defendant is not entitled to relief in the district court. If the court finds the petitioner is not in fact entitled to relief, it must dismiss the petition.

The court explained that a party filing a federal habeas corpus petition must exhaust their state court remedies prior to filing the petition. In order to properly exhaust their remedies, they must fairly present each claim to the state court. This includes, among other things, a requirement that the petitioner presents the issue to both the state court of appeals and the state supreme court.

In other words, fair presentation requires that the state courts are given the opportunity to review both the legal and factual grounds for each claim. If a petition contains both unexhausted and exhausted claims, it is referred to as a mixed petition and will typically be subject to dismissal on exhaustion grounds. In the subject case, the defendant’s petition expressly stated that it included unexhausted claims. Thus, the court denied the petition while preserving the defendant’s right to refile in the future.

Speak to Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Simply because a person is convicted of a crime does not mean that they have no recourse for protecting their liberties and reputation. If you have questions regarding your rights as a criminal defendant, it is smart to speak to an attorney. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to help you seek a favorable outcome. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

History of the Case

It is reported that the state charged the defendant with four counts of making misleading or false statements to a police officer during the course of a criminal investigation. Specifically, the defendant, who was the President of a University, was questioned about her knowledge of sexual misconduct allegations against a sports medicine doctor at the school. The police alleged that she falsely claimed she did not know the identity of the doctor during a Title IX investigation in 2014 or the nature and substance of the investigation. The defendant filed a motion to quash bind over. The Circuit Court granted the motion, quashing the bind over of the defendant and dismissing the case. The state appealed.

Proving a Person Made False Statements to Law Enforcement

On appeal, the appellate court held that the state lacked sufficient evidence to show that the statements the defendant made to law enforcement were misleading or affirmatively false. The court elaborated the information was inadequate to allow an ordinarily prudent person to hold a reasonable belief that the defendant made a misleading or false statement, and therefore, there was no probable cause.

Further, the appellate court held that the state failed to demonstrate that the allegedly misleading or false statements made by the defendant were material. A false statement will be deemed material, for the purposes of the statute barring people from willfully and knowingly making false statements to a police officer about a material fact in a criminal investigation, if the person knows that the statement is false or is misleading and they are aware that it has a natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing the decision making body.

Here, the appellate court found that the prosecution failed to establish the statements in question were material. Thus, it affirmed the trial court ruling.

Talk to a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

People generally have an obligation to be truthful and candid during the course of criminal investigations, and if they are not, they may face serious repercussions. If you are being investigated for a crime or were recently charged with a criminal offense, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to help you fight to protect your rights. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and convicted of robbing a bank. He was sentenced to 165 months in prison and is serving his sentence in federal prison. He moved for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act, citing his age and other health conditions as reasons for his concerns that he may develop severe complications from COVID-19. The government filed a response in opposition to his motion. The court ultimately denied his motion without a hearing.

Sentence Reductions Under the First Step Act

The court explained that district courts could only modify a defendant’s sentence if they have statutory authority to do so. The First Step Act provides them with such authority. Specifically, it states, in the relevant part, that upon a defendant’s motion, a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence after considering multiple enumerated factors if it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary reasons that warrant such a reduction.

The First Step Act also requires defendants to exhaust their administrative rights to an appeal prior to seeking such relief. Following the enactment of the First Step Act, the Sixth Circuit clarified the manner in which district courts should evaluate a defendant’s motion for release under the Act. In doing so, it dictated that a third factor, a policy statement, was no longer a requirement.

In the subject case, the court declined to reduce the imposed sentence. The court noted that the defendant suffered from multiple conditions that increased his risk of contracting a severe illness from COVID-19. It stated, however, that he was fully vaccinated and only two inmates at his facility were COVID-19 positive. Thus, his risk of contracting it was low and did not constitute a sufficient reason for reducing his sentence. Further, the court held that the circumstances and nature of his offense and the need to protect the public from additional crimes weighed against a reduction. Thus, it denied his motion.

Meet with a Knowledgeable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Many people serving sentences for theft crimes may be eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act. If you have questions about the Act or criminal charges against you, it is advisable to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can inform you of your rights and help you to seek the best legal result possible under the facts of your case. You can contact Mr. Bernstein via the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Defendant’s Charge and Conviction

It is alleged that police officers were looking for the defendant, as he was absconding from parole, and there were seven warrants out for his arrest. They received permission from a homeowner to search his house, and during the search, they found the defendant in the basement. He was sleeping on a mattress on the floor near an unloaded pistol and a magazine.

It is reported that the defendant was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to fifty-one months in prison. He appealed, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Sentencing in Gun Crime Cases

Appellate courts review sentences for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. The court explained that when a defendant asserts that a sentence is substantively unreasonable, they are essentially arguing that it is too long. A sentence will be considered too long if it is greater than is necessary to achieve the goal of sentencing.

The court further explained that when a criminal defendant argues that a sentence is substantively unreasonable, they are asserting that the court granted some sentencing factors too little weight and others too much. Some elements that are relevant for sentencing purposes are the circumstances and nature of the offense and the characteristics of the defendant. In other words, a court can consider a defendant’s criminal history when issuing a sentence, even if it is already reflected in the advisory guidelines range.

The mere fact that a court issues a sentence that is above the guidelines does not mean that it is presumptively unreasonable. In the subject case, the court found that based on the defendant’s extensive criminal history and the goal of deterring him from committing additional crimes, the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. Thus, it denied his appeal.

Consult a Skillful Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

People convicted of felonies often lose important rights, including the right to own or carry a firearm. If you are charged with unlawfully possessing a gun, it is advisable to meet with an attorney to discuss your possible defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skillful Michigan criminal defense lawyer who takes pride in helping criminal defendants mount compelling defenses, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Alleged Crime

It is reported that the victim and the defendant attended a work event together. After the event, they went out drinking along with other individuals. The victim became intoxicated and returned to another companion’s hotel room, where she became sick and then fell asleep.

Allegedly, she awoke hours later and noticed that the defendant’s arm was around her and his hand was feeling around inside of her underwear. The victim elbowed the defendant, who stopped. He was later charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was convicted, after which he appealed.

Prior Bad Acts Evidence in Michigan Criminal Cases

On appeal, the defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in allowing his former girlfriend to testify that days before the subject incident, the defendant engaged in non-consensual anal sex with her while she was sleeping. The appellate court explained that while evidence of other wrongs is not admissible to establish guilt, it can be used to show intent, proof of motive, or a common plan or scheme.

Essentially, the rule regarding prior bad acts evidence is one of inclusion that allows for relevant other acts evidence to be admitted as long as it is not being used solely to demonstrate criminal tendencies. In other words, it is admissible if it is being offered for a proper reason, is relevant to a material fact, and its probative value is not significantly outweighed by the risk of prejudice.

In the subject case, the prosecution introduced the testimony from the defendant’s former girlfriend to show a common plan or scheme. The appellate court found that the prior act and the conduct out of which the defendant’s charge arose were sufficiently similar to establish a common plan, and the introduction of evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts was therefore proper. Thus, it affirmed his conviction.

Meet with a Skilled Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

The state cannot attempt to prove a criminal defendant’s guilt by introducing evidence of prior bad acts, but it may be able to use such evidence for other purposes. If you are accused of a crime of a sexual nature, it is smart to speak with a lawyer as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skilled Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise you of your rights and help you to pursue the best legal outcome available under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant engaged in a video chat with the victim, who was fourteen, and her mother. During the conversation, the defendant expressed that he had a sexual dream about the victim and that he had previously engaged in sexual activity with a mother and daughter. At some point after that, the victim asked her mother to rub her stomach, but her mother rubbed near her breasts and underwear. The defendant later met the victim and her mother in a hotel room and engaged in sexual intercourse with the mother. He was later charged with numerous offenses, including using a computer to commit a crime. He was convicted, after which he appealed.

Using a Computer to Commit a Crime

Under Michigan law, in order to convict a defendant of using a computer to commit a crime, the prosecution must show that the defendant used a computer or a computer program, system, or network, to either commit, conspire or attempt to commit, or solicit another person to commit a crime. A person can be convicted of this offense regardless of whether they are convicted of committing, attempting, or conspiring to commit or soliciting another party to commit the underlying offense.

In the subject case, the underlying offense for the charge was producing child sexually abusive activity, which the court noted was defined as a child engaging in an enumerated sexual act, which included fondling. In the subject case, the defendant argued that there was no evidence that he arranged for sexually abusive activity involving a child, or prepared, attempted, or conspired to arrange such activity. The appellate court disagreed, noting that a rational factfinder could determine that the solicited the victim’s mother to commit the underlying offense of child sexually abusive activity. Thus, it affirmed his conviction.

Speak to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a sex crime can irreparably harm a person’s rights and reputation. If you are charged with a sex offense, it is prudent to speak to an attorney about your options for seeking a favorable outcome. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to help you protect your interests, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant and the victim, who were married, lived together with the victim’s adult daughter and her son. The defendant and the victim began arguing one morning, and their disagreement became physical. The victim then kicked the defendant out of the house. Later that evening, the victim’s daughter was in her room when she again heard the victim and defendant arguing. She then heard gunshots and called 911. After she left her room, she found the victim, who had been shot.

Allegedly, the victim died from her wounds. The defendant was charged with and convicted of murder. He appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence at trial.

Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence

Under Michigan law, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible unless it falls under one of the enumerated exceptions. The court explained that hearsay is a statement made by someone other than the person testifying at a hearing or trial, the is offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Statements are defined by the Michigan rules of evidence as not only oral or written assertions but also nonverbal behavior if it is intended to be an assertion.

In the subject case, the court rejected the defendant’s reasoning and found that all the statements he alleged were hearsay were properly admitted. For example, the victim’s daughter’s testimony that she heard the defendant and victim arguing was offered to show the effect they had on the parties, not the truth of the matter asserted. As such, they were not hearsay because their value did depend on whether or not they were true. The court found that other statements were properly admitted under the present sense exception and excited utterance exception. Thus, the court found that the trial court properly admitted the statements in question and affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Meet with an Assertive Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

The prosecution is limited in what evidence it can introduce at trial, and if it improperly relies on hearsay testimony, it could result in an unjust verdict. If you are accused of a criminal offense, it is in your best interest to hire an attorney to help you formulate a defense. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an assertive Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can gather any evidence that will help you seek a just result. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Defendant’s Allegations

It is alleged that in 2018, the defendant was convicted of multiple drug offenses and sentenced to 180 months in imprisonment in a federal penitentiary. In June 2020, she filed a motion for compassionate relief under the Act. In support of her motion, she argued that her obesity, history of heart surgery, and hypertension increased her risk of becoming severely ill or dying if she contracted COVID-19. The court ultimately denied her motion.

Compassionate Release Under the First Step Act

The Act modified the law relating to the compassionate release of federal prisoners, and in doing so allowed federal district courts to consider motions by incarcerated people asking for a reduction in their sentences. Under the Act, the courts must engage in a three-step test before granting a motion for compassionate release. First, they must find that compelling and extraordinary reasons exist that warrant a reduction in the sentence in question. Second, the court must make sure that the reduction aligns with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Finally, the court must weigh all the relevant sentencing factors.

If the court meets all of these requirements, it can choose to grant a motion for compassionate release but can decline to grant such relief. Compelling and extraordinary reasons are not limited to those set forth in the applicable statute, and the courts have the discretion to determine whether the specific circumstances warrant a compassionate release. The courts have held, however, that a generalized fear of contracting COVID-19, without more, is not a compelling and extraordinary reason for granting compassionate release. Further, the court found that the defendant’s arguments were not persuasive because she had been offered but refused a COVID-19 vaccine. Based on the foregoing, the court declined to grant the defendant’s motion for compassionate release, as she failed to demonstrate it was warranted.

Meet with a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

The law allows people sentenced to imprisonment in federal penitentiaries to seek release in certain situations, but such relief is only granted in extraordinary circumstances. If you were charged with a federal offense, it is advisable to contact an attorney to determine your options for protecting your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer who takes pride in helping criminal defendants fight for favorable outcomes, and if he represents you, he will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that someone called the police and reported they saw a woman yelling at her children and behaving obnoxiously. The caller stated that the driver was inebriated, but no further evidence was supplied to back up this claim. The caller did, however, supply a great deal of identifying information about the vehicle being driven, including the license plate number, the make, model, and color of the vehicle, as well as the direction it was headed. No evidence of the caller’s identity existed, and the police recording was never brought into evidence.

Allegedly, an officer was deployed in response to the call, and he found and stopped the specified car, which was driven by the defendant. Prior to doing so, he did not verify the reported intoxication or observe the defendant violating any traffic laws. The defendant was subsequently charged with DUI. She moved for dismissal on the grounds that the stop was unlawful. The court granted the motion, but following a series of appeals, the charges were reinstated.

The Legality of Traffic Stops

Under the state and federal constitutions, a police officer must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person is engaging in criminal activity to justify a traffic stop. Reasonable and articulable suspicion is a weaker showing than probable cause in Michigan, but it is more than a hunch. Further, a police officer must have a specific and objective justification for stopping a vehicle. In the subject case, the court ultimately determined that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop. As a result, the defendant’s stop was found to be unconstitutional, and the charges against her were dismissed.

Speak with a Seasoned Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a DUI crime can result in license suspension, fines, jail time, and other penalties. In many instances, it can also harm a person’s career, reputation, and relationships. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney to determine whether you may be able to argue the charges against you should be dismissed. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to obtain a just outcome, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Bernstein via the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Youthful Trainee Law

Michigan recently passed a law that would allow most people under the age of 26 who are charged with a crime to avoid obtaining a permanent criminal record. The law states that if a person pleads guilty to a crime committed between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, a court may assign the person to the status of youthful trainee. The individual charged with the crime, the prosecution, and in some instances the victim must be obtained in certain circumstances.

Eligibility for Youthful Trainee Status

Pursuant to the law, the defendant enters a guilty plea, but no conviction is entered. As long as court ruling over the case does not rescind the youthful trainee status, the case will be dropped and the person will have no criminal record when the matter is resolved. Further, the law expressly states that an individual’s assignment as a youthful trainee protects them from incurring any civil penalties or the loss of any right or privilege.

Not everyone under the age of 26 will be eligible for youthful trainee status consideration. For example, people charged with certain offenses are disqualified, like those accused of crimes punishable by life in prison, and most sex crimes, Further, people charged with traffic crimes, including any type of drunk driving violation, are ineligible for youthful trainee status consideration.

Youthful Trainee Status Conditions

A person with the status of a young trainee may be forced to complete a probationary period that includes requirements such as obtaining a GED, maintaining employment, or attending college or trade school. They may also have to comply with other conditions. The failure to comply with these terms and restrictions can result in the individual’s youthful trainee status being revoked. They will then have a criminal record. They may face additional penalties as well, such as jail.

Being assigned to youthful trainee status does not exempt a person from punishment. In other words, people placed on youthful trainee status, and that is not the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act’s stated intent or purpose. A person can be may be sentenced to probation or prison.

Contact a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are 26 or younger and are charged with a crime, you may be eligible for youthful trainee status, and you should contact an attorney. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise you of your rights and help you to seek a favorable outcome. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a consultation.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant sexually assaulted his minor daughter twice in the same incident or transaction. He was subsequently charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count for each act. Following a trial, a jury issued a guilty verdict. He was then sentenced to thirty to fifty years in prison for each count, with the terms running consecutively. The defendant then appealed.

Sentencing for Michigan Sex Crimes

On appeal, the defendant argued that the judge imposed the sentences under the false impression that he was not violating the sentencing guidelines. The court was not persuaded by the defendant’s reasoning. The court explained that as the mandatory minimum in effect operates as the sentencing guidelines minimum range, any sentence that surpasses the mandatory minimum equates to a sentence outside the guidelines minimum range. As such, the trial court did in fact depart from the guidelines.

The court went on to explain that the sentencing guidelines are discretionary rather than mandatory. However, when a judge imposes a sentence that is outside the upper guideline range, the reasons for doing so must be indicated on the record. While it is true that the judge that issued the sentence in the subject case incorrectly determined that the sentence imposed did not deviate from the guidelines, the error was irrelevant. In other words, because the judge issued the ruling as if the sentence was a departure because he stated compelling reasons for the sentence on the record.

The defendant further claimed that the two consecutive sentences of thirty to fifty years were unjust. The court again disagreed. Specifically, it re-examined the judge’s reasons for the sentence and determined that the penalties were proportional on that basis.

Speak to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Sex crimes can result in significant penalties, as demonstrated in the above-noted case. As such, it is important for anyone charged with a sex crime to hire an attorney adept at handling challenging criminal matters. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an assertive Michigan criminal defense lawyer who is well-versed in what it takes to achieve a favorable outcome, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a consultation.