156077 - People v David Ross Ames
Attorney Information
|
The People of the State
of Michigan,
|
|
Linus Banghart-Linn
Jennifer Bruggeman
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of
Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Lenawee – Noe, M.)
|
|
|
David Ross Ames,
|
|
Marilena David-Martin
|
|
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Defendant pleaded guilty to
second-degree home invasion and larceny in a building. The trial court
sentenced defendant to serve prison terms of 5 to 15 years for the home
invasion and 2½ to 4 years for the larceny. The sentencing guidelines ranges
were 36 to 71 months and zero to 17 months, respectively. On appeal, in light
of People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358
(2015), defendant challenged the continuing validity of the first sentence of
MCL 769.34(10)—“If a minimum sentence is within the appropriate guidelines
sentence range, the court of appeals shall affirm that sentence and shall not
remand for resentencing absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or
inaccurate information relied upon in determining the defendant’s sentence.” The
Court of Appeals denied defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal for
lack of merit in the grounds presented. The Supreme Court has ordered oral
argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal to address whether MCL
769.34(10) has been rendered invalid by the decision in Lockridge, to the extent that the statute requires the Court of
Appeals to affirm sentences that fall within the applicable guidelines range “absent
an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information relied
upon in determining the defendant’s sentence.” See People v Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181, 196 (2016).