|
No. 119348
| The People of the |
|
Timothy A. Baughman (313) 224-5792 |
| State of Michigan, |
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
| (Wayne - Thomas, D.) |
|
|
| Linda Petit, |
|
Chari K. Grove (313) 256-9833 |
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
Defendant Linda Petit shot and killed her sister, LuBrenda Jones, as
Jones was entering her Detroit home with her handicapped adult daughter
Wendy. Petit then called the police. Petit was arrested and charged
with first-degree murder and felony-firearm. Petit raised an insanity
defense. Prior to trial, she pled nolo contendere but mentally ill to
reduced charges of second-degree murder and felony-firearm. At the plea
proceeding, defense counsel indicated that Petit's reason for pleading
no contest was that Petit wanted to avoid civil liability and could
not remember clearly what happened. Petit declined to speak with the
presentence report preparer. As a part of the bargain, there was a sentence
agreement to impose nothing more nor less than 16½ to 40 years in prison
on the second-degree murder plus 2 years for felony-firearm. Wayne County
Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas accepted the plea. At the sentencing hearing,
Petit's attorney allocuted on Petit's behalf. Judge Thomas asked if
there was anything further before imposing the 16½ to 40-year plus 2-year
sentence. Petit appealed and asked to be re-sentenced. She argued that
the judge erred by not inviting Petit to allocute (advise the court
of any circumstances the defendant believes the court should know before
imposing sentence) on her own. The Court of Appeals denied Petit's application
for leave to appeal. Petit appealed to the Supreme Court. Petit argues
that she is entitled to re-sentencing under Michigan Court Rule 6.425.
MCR 6.425 states in part that the court must "give the defendant, the
defendant's lawyer, the prosecutor, and the victim an opportunity to
advise the court of any circumstances they believe the court should
consider in imposing sentence." Petit also argues she should be re-sentenced
because the trial judge did not refer to the sentencing guidelines and
never gave a reason for the sentence at the hearing.
|
