The trial court jury convicted him of a third felony-firearm. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment as a third felony-firearm offender under MCL 750.227b(1). Defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that it was improper because his previous convictions for felony-firearm arose out of a single incident.

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral argument on an application for leave to appeal concerning the effect of a two-year “misdemeanor” conviction. People v. Washington, Case No. 156283, concerns the question of whether a two-year misdemeanor conviction for maintaining a drug house may serve as the predicate felony conviction for the charge of possessing a firearm during commission of a felony pursuant to MCL 750.227b. If the Court grants the application, this case has the potential to have significant ramifications for individuals with so-called “high court misdemeanor” convictions.

Further, the court upheld the trial court’s denial of the prosecutor’s request to withdraw the plea agreement and proceed to trial. In Smith, the defendant was charged with “domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2); malicious destruction of personal property, MCL 750.377a(1)(a)(i); felonious assault, MCL 750.82; and felony firearm, MCL 750.227b.” Prior to trial, “the prosecution and defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby defendant would plead guilty to the charge of malicious destruction of property and agreed both to resign his Senate seat and to refrain from holding public office during his five-year probationary period (which included a ten-month jail term).”

The Court of Appeals ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s counsel adequately advised him of the consequences of withdrawing his guilty plea. In granting mini-oral argument on the application, the Court asked the parties to address five questions: (1) whether the trial court erred by providing written instructions to the jury on the elements of the charged offenses but not reading those instructions aloud to the jury; (2) whether the trial court’s instructions on the charge of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b, fairly presented the issues to be tried and adequately protected the defendant’s rights; (3) whether the defendant waived any instructional errors when his attorney expressed satisfaction with the instructions as given; (4) what standard of review this Court should employ in reviewing the Court of Appeals decision to order an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and (5) whether the Court of Appeals erred under the applicable standard when it ordered an evidentiary hearing for defendant to establish the factual predicate for his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly advise him of the potential consequences of withdrawing his guilty plea.

A finding of plain error would require reversal of the defendant’s convictions. The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83, possession of a firearm with during the commission of a felony, second offense, MCL 750.227b, and felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions on October 13, 2015, rejecting defendant’s arguments that (1) failure to administer an oath to the jury was plain error; (2) that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (3) that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment because of his age and health; and (4) that the trial court violated his right against self-incrimination because he had to admit to prior convictions at trial.

The crisis line worker called 9-1-1 pursuant to his duty to report under MCL 330.1946. Defendant was eventually charged with one count of threat of terrorism, MCL 750.543m, and one count of felony firearm, MCL 750.227b. The defendant argued that the statements made to the crisis line worker, who had a “limited license” for social work, was privileged as a statement made to license mental health professional under MCL 300.18513.

People v Powell, 303 Mich App 271; 842 NW2d 538 (2013)(nov’13). Defendant was convicted of felony firearm (MCL 750.227b) in relation to an underlying possession with intent to deliver marijuana charge. Defendant argued that the felony firearm statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because the jury acquitted him of the underlying possession with intent to deliver charge.

People v Powell, 303 Mich App 271; 842 NW2d 538 (2013)(nov’13). Defendant was convicted of felony firearm (MCL 750.227b) in relation to an underlying possession with intent to deliver marijuana charge. The trial court granted a new trial because it abused its discretion in denying admission of evidence that Defendant had a Concealed Pistol License (CPL).

The Supreme Court denied the applications in all other respects, unpersuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed at this time, and did not retain jurisdiction. Defendant Jimmy Earl McCaskill initially appealed by right to the Court of Appeals his jury-trial convictions of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, possession of a firearm by a felon (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. He was sentenced as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to concurrent prison terms of 20 to 40 years for the armed robbery conviction and 3 to 5 years for the felon-in-possession conviction, as well as a consecutive term of two years for the felony-firearm conviction.

People v Powell, 303 Mich App 271; 842 NW2d 538 (2013)(nov’13). Defendant was convicted of felony firearm (MCL 750.227b) in relation to an underlying possession with intent to deliver marijuana charge. The trial court granted a new trial because it abused its discretion in denying admission of evidence that Defendant had a Concealed Pistol License (CPL).