From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Watkins

Michigan Court of Appeals
Feb 21, 1995
209 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)

Summary

concluding misconduct tickets provided substantial and compelling reason for departure

Summary of this case from People v. Lane

Opinion

Docket Nos. 158010, 158821.

Submitted January 12, 1995, at Detroit.

Decided February 21, 1995, at 9:55 A.M.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Jeffrey Caminsky and Paul A. Bernier, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the people.

State Appellate Defender (by Peter Jon Van Hoek), for Donald Watkins.

Mueckenheim Mueckenheim, P.C. (by Mercedes D. Mueckenheim), for Christian Phillips.

Before: CONNOR, P.J., and WAHLS and SAAD, JJ.


After a retrial, a jury convicted defendant Donald Watkins of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548, assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278, kidnapping, MCL 750.349; MSA 28.581, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, 50 to 80 years, life, and 2 years for the respective convictions. After a retrial, a jury convicted defendant Christian Phillips of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549, assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278, kidnapping, MCL 750.349; MSA 28.581, and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). The sentencing guidelines provided for a minimum sentence of 15 to 30 years or life for the murder conviction, 10 to 25 years or life for the assault conviction, and 10 to 25 years for the kidnapping conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant Phillips to prison for 75 to 150 years for the murder conviction, 50 to 100 years for the assault conviction, 30 to 60 years for the kidnapping conviction, and 2 years for the felony-firearm conviction.

This case was originally tried in 1987, and resulted in both defendants being convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, kidnapping, and felony-firearm. Defendants appealed and their appeals were consolidated by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the defendants' convictions. 178 Mich. App. 439; 444 N.W.2d 201 (1989). The Supreme Court reversed the defendants' convictions and remanded the matter to the trial court for retrial. 438 Mich. 627; 475 N.W.2d 727 (1991). After a retrial, defendants again appeal as of right from their convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals. We affirm.

We find that the trial court's determination that the prosecution had shown due diligence in attempting to locate and produce res gestae witness Bernard Payne was not clearly erroneous and is well supported by the record. People v Lawton, 196 Mich. App. 341, 348; 492 N.W.2d 810 (1992). The test for due diligence is whether good-faith efforts were made to procure the testimony of the witness, not whether increased efforts would have produced it. People v James (After Remand), 192 Mich. App. 568, 571; 481 N.W.2d 715 (1992). Contrary to defendants' claims, People v Dye, 431 Mich. 58; 427 N.W.2d 501 (1988), is distinguishable from the instant case. The first Dye trial ended in a mistrial, so the prosecution immediately knew that a retrial would occur. Id. at 61. In the case at bar, four years passed between the first trial and the reversal of the convictions. According to the record, efforts to locate Payne began at least a month before the retrial and were exhaustive. In addition, the record does not indicate that there was a problem producing Payne for the first trial. As such, the trial court properly concluded that Payne was "unavailable" pursuant to MRE 804(a) (5) and that the prosecution was duly diligent in attempting to secure his presence at the retrial.

Next, we find that the change of the prosecution's theory of the case from forcible confinement to secret confinement between the first and second trials does not require the reversal of defendant Watkins' conviction of kidnapping. Defendant Watkins has failed to preserve this issue, because he did not raise an objection below to the jury instructions regarding kidnapping. People v Van Dorsten, 441 Mich. 540, 545; 494 N.W.2d 737 (1993). At any rate, the prosecutor is free to pursue an alternative theory encompassed by the kidnapping statute on retrial. People v Bergevin, 406 Mich. 307, 311; 279 N.W.2d 528 (1979); and see People v Bowman, 36 Mich. App. 502, 509; 194 N.W.2d 36 (1971), and People v Dimitru, 224 Mich. 670; 195 N.W. 420 (1923). Contrary to defendant Watkins' apparent argument, the alternative theories contained in MCL 750.349; MSA 28.581 are not lesser included offenses. The kidnapping statute encompasses alternative theories, but gives rise to "only one criminal charge for purposes of trial, conviction, and sentencing." Bergevin, supra, 312. Accordingly, instructing the jury regarding the secret confinement theory in the second trial did not cause manifest injustice, and defendant Watkins' double jeopardy claim is without merit.

We also find defendant Watkins is not entitled to resentencing with regard to the conviction of assault with intent to commit murder. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the guidelines when sentencing defendant Watkins following the second trial. The court articulated specific reasons for its upward departure. In addition, the trial court's increased sentence was justified by new information. Specifically, the trial court noted that since his incarceration after the first trial, defendant Watkins had received fourteen misconduct tickets. Furthermore, our affirmance of defendant Watkins' first-degree murder conviction, with its mandatory life sentence, effectively nullifies the significance of any sentences for the companion convictions. People v Passeno, 195 Mich. App. 91, 102; 489 N.W.2d 152 (1992).

We find defendant Phillips' claim that Offense Variable 3, premeditation, was erroneously scored to be without merit. Sentencing guidelines scoring decisions for which there is any supporting evidence will be upheld on appeal. People v Hernandez, 443 Mich. 1, 16; 503 N.W.2d 629 (1993). The trial court supported its scoring of ov 3 by referring to the confessions of two codefendants, which clearly established a plot to kill. The trial court properly considered this evidence of premeditation at sentencing, even though it was inadmissible at trial. People v Fleming, 428 Mich. 408, 418; 410 N.W.2d 266 (1987), and People v King, 158 Mich. App. 672, 679; 405 N.W.2d 116 (1987).

Finally, we find defendant Phillips' sentences for the murder, assault, and kidnapping convictions do not violate the proportionality requirement of People v Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630; 461 N.W.2d 1 (1990). We acknowledge that the trial court's upward departures are extensive. However, we believe the sentences are justified by the facts. Departures are appropriate where the guidelines do not adequately account for factors that legitimately can be considered at sentencing. People v Witcher, 192 Mich. App. 307, 309; 480 N.W.2d 636 (1991). Defendant Phillips displayed particular viciousness and a total disregard for public safety in the commission of the crimes. Not only did he participate in what was to be the callous execution of a suspected rival drug dealer, but the assassins were apparently indifferent to the fact that the automobile they ambushed was occupied by a passenger who would ultimately die in the fusillade. People v Merriweather, 447 Mich. 799; 527 N.W.2d 460 (1994). The sentences may serve to deter other drug dealers from murdering individuals suspected of encroaching on their drug territory. Moreover, defendant Phillips has a deplorable prison record, including numerous misconduct violations he received while awaiting retrial. In light of the serious nature of the crimes and defendant Phillips' background, the sentences imposed were proportionate.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Watkins

Michigan Court of Appeals
Feb 21, 1995
209 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)

concluding misconduct tickets provided substantial and compelling reason for departure

Summary of this case from People v. Lane

noting that the record included no indication that the prosecution experienced difficulties in producing an unavailable witness for the defendant's first trial

Summary of this case from Alexander v. Lesatz

In People v Watkins, 209 Mich App 1, 5; 530 NW2d 111 (1995), this Court held that its "affirmance of [the] defendant['s] first-degree murder conviction, with its mandatory life sentence, effectively nullifie[d] the significance of any sentences for the companion convictions.

Summary of this case from People v. Thomas

noting that the record included no indication that the prosecution experienced difficulties in producing an unavailable witness for the defendant's first trial

Summary of this case from People v. Alexander

noting that "the prosecution had shown due diligence in attempting to locate and produce [the witness]" because, in part, the record indicated that the prosecution's "efforts to locate [the witness] began at least a month before the retrial"

Summary of this case from People v. Dawson
Case details for

People v. Watkins

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v WATKINS PEOPLE v PHILLIPS

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 21, 1995

Citations

209 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)
530 N.W.2d 111

Citing Cases

People v. Witherspoon

Moreover, because defendant received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for his conviction…

People v. Larry

This was not an abuse of discretion. As this Court held in People v Watkins, 209 Mich App 1, 5; 530 NW2d 111…