Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Stricklin

Court of Appeals of Michigan

January 9, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICKY THEODORE STRICKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

         Muskegon Circuit Court LC No. 15-066431-FH

          Before: Meter, P.J., and Borrello and Boonstra, JJ

          Boonstra, J.

         Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted[1] his convictions, following a bench trial, of third-offense domestic violence, MCL 750.81(4), [2] and witness intimidation, MCL 750.122(7)(b).[3] The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 12 years for each offense. We affirm.

         I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On appeal, defendant challenges only his sentence, not his convictions. Defendant's domestic violence conviction arose from an incident in which he repeatedly punched his girlfriend in the face. His witness intimidation conviction arose from his placement of a call to the victim from jail, while he was awaiting trial, during which he told the victim not to come to court for his trial. This call was recorded and admitted into evidence. It was undisputed that defendant had two previous domestic violence convictions, and that he had committed sufficient prior felonies to be charged as a fourth-offense habitual offender; defendant does not contest these facts on appeal.

         At sentencing, defendant argued that his convictions should only be enhanced to a maximum sentence of 15 years by virtue of his habitual offender status. Defendant further argued that his witness intimidation sentence should be based on the underlying offense of domestic violence without any habitual offender enhancements. The trial court rejected both arguments, holding that defendant's habitual offender status warranted an enhancement of his maximum sentence for domestic violence to life imprisonment, and indicated that it would proceed on that basis.[4] With regard to the witness intimidation conviction, the trial court based its sentence on the underlying crime of third-offense domestic violence as enhanced by defendant's habitual offender status.[5]

         The trial court sentenced defendant as described. This appeal followed.

         II. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SENTENCE

         Defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing because his sentence for domestic violence was erroneously enhanced under both the domestic violence statute and the habitual offender act. We disagree. Defendant's argument presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. See People v Flick, 487 Mich. 1, 9; 790 N.W.2d 295 (2010).

         MCL 750.81 provides in pertinent part:

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) or (4), an individual who assaults or assaults and batters his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating relationship, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.
(4) An individual who commits an assault or an assault and battery in violation of subsection (2), and who has 2 or more previous convictions for assaulting or assaulting and battering his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating relationship, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, under any of the following, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5, 000.00, or both:
(a) This section or an ordinance of a political subdivision of this state substantially ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.