People v. Holt
| Docket Number | 361466 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 2024 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARTELL DESHAWN HOLT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Jackson Circuit Court LC No. 21-002478-FH
Before: GADOLA, C.J., and K. F. KELLY and MURRAY, JJ.
Defendant appeals by right his jury trial conviction of first-degree home invasion that stemmed from an incident in which he broke into and stole property from the home of his exgirlfriend. Defendant was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to serve 6 to 20 years' imprisonment. Finding no errors warranting reversal, we affirm.
The victim and defendant began dating in July 2021, and she testified that the relationship started fine but "just kind of went bad kind of quickly." She also testified that, one afternoon when she came home from work, she noticed that a table in her home was moved, that her bed was unmade and that "on my couch there was a condom wrapper on it and a ring left behind." She testified that she recognized the ring as belonging to defendant and that no one aside from her had access or a key to her home. The victim testified that when she confronted defendant about this, he first denied it, and then "laughed about it and kind of felt mocked about it like pretty much what are you going to do." The victim testified that their relationship ended the beginning of August 2021.
In the early morning hours of August 23, 2021, the victim woke up to defendant standing in the doorway of her bedroom, and defendant told her to come downstairs with him to talk. She testified that as she and defendant went outside, she noticed that her purse and keys were not on the couch by her front door as they usually were. Once they were outside, the victim reached for her phone in her pocket and testified that defendant "grabbed my hand so I couldn't get my phone out of my pocket because he didn't want me to use it." She testified that she later saw defendant pulling her belongings, including her purse, watch, and work nametag, out of a bush next to the front porch. The victim testified that she also noticed that her Apple watch, wallet, the title to her car, and her car keys were missing. The victim then called the police, and Jackson City Police Officer Brandi Davis was dispatched to the home. Officer Davis did not enter the home, and she was unable to locate defendant or any of the victim's missing property.
The victim testified that the same day, after she left the house for some time to run errands, she came back home and saw that her bathroom window was pushed through and that her house was a mess. The victim testified that she called the police again, and Officer Luis Reynaga was dispatched. Officer Reynaga testified that he went inside the house to assess the damage, but he was unable to locate defendant or locate any of the victim's missing property. The victim testified that she moved to another location with her children, but on August 27, 2021, she returned to the home and saw that it was uncharacteristically messy, the door to the basement was opened, and a window was opened. She testified that she then called the police a third time.
As noted, the jury found defendant guilty of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), and sentenced him as a second-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to serve 6 to 20 years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Relying on the Michigan Supreme Court's holding in People v Cooks, 446 Mich. 503; 521 N.W.2d 275 (1994), defendant argues that he was entitled to a specific unanimity instruction because the prosecution presented materially distinct acts to prove whether defendant committed larceny or assault and that, therefore, the trial court plainly erred by not instructing the jury that it must unanimously agree on which underlying felony was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Alternatively, defendant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to request a specific unanimity instruction. We disagree.
Generally, we review claims of instructional error de novo. People v Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488, 501; 803 N.W.2d 200 (2011). And we review "for an abuse of discretion a trial court's determination that a specific instruction is inapplicable given the facts of the case." People v Hartuniewicz, 294 Mich.App. 237, 242; 816 N.W.2d 442 (2011). However, because this issue was not preserved for appeal, we review it for plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights. See People v Coy, 258 Mich.App. 1, 12; 669 N.W.2d 831 (2003). Under plain error review:
First, there must be an error; second, the error must be plain (i.e., clear or obvious); and third, the error must affect substantial rights (i.e., there must be a showing that the error was outcome determinative). Moreover, reversal is warranted only when plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, independent of guilt or innocence. [Id. (citation omitted).]
Generally, People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575, 579; 640 N.W.2d 246 (2002). But because no evidentiary hearing was held before the trial court, this Court's "review of this issue is limited to mistakes apparent on the record." People v Jackson, 292 Mich.App. 583, 600; 808 N.W.2d 541 (2011).
The Michigan and United States Constitutions both provide defendant with a constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict. See U.S. Const, Ams VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 14; People v Gadomski, 232 Mich.App. 24, 30; 592 N.W.2d 75 (1998). "In order to protect a defendant's right to a unanimous verdict, it is the duty of the trial court to properly instruct the jury regarding the unanimity requirement." Cooks, 446 Mich. at 511. Generally, in cases in which "materially identical evidence is presented with respect to each act, and there is no juror confusion, a general unanimity instruction will suffice." Id. at 512-513.
In a general unanimity instruction, the trial court instructs the jury, after listing the elements of all the charges in a case, that the Id. at 509. A specific unanimity instruction, on the other hand, instructs the jury that "it must unanimously agree on the same specific act" if "the prosecution offers evidence of multiple acts by a defendant, each of which would satisfy the actus reus element of a single charged offense." Gadomski, 232 Mich.App. at 30. A specific unanimity instruction must be given if: "1) the alternative acts presented as evidence are conceptually distinct or there are distinct proofs regarding each alternative, or 2) other factors are present that create a genuine possibility of juror confusion or disagreement." Cooks, 446 Mich. at 519. In determining whether a specific unanimity instruction is required, the "critical inquiry is whether either party has presented evidence that materially distinguishes any of the alleged multiple acts from the others." Id.
In the present case, the trial court instructed the jury that in order to find defendant guilty of first-degree home invasion, it must find that: (1) defendant broke into a dwelling with force; (2) defendant entered the dwelling; and (3) when defendant entered, was present in, or was leaving the dwelling, "he committed the offense of larceny and/or assault." The trial court then gave the jury a general unanimity instruction:
A verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous. In order to return a verdict it is necessary that each of you agrees on that verdict. In the jury room you will discuss the case among yourselves, but ultimately each of you will have to make up your own mind. Any verdict must represent the individual considered judgment of each juror.
During closing argument, concerning whether defendant committed a larceny or assault while in the house, the prosecutor stated:
You all don't have to agree on what he did in that home. If some of you think he committed an assault, some of you think he committed a larceny, some of you think he committed both, all of that is fine. You just have to unanimously believe he did either a larceny or an assault or both. You can have six of you think it's a larceny and six of you think it's an assault. That's enough . . . you don't have to be unanimous on what he did as long as you're unanimous on that it was either a larceny or an assault or both.
After the jury verdict, defendant moved for a new trial and for an evidentiary hearing in the trial court, arguing that he was entitled to a specific unanimity instruction and that defense counsel was deficient for failing to request such an instruction. The trial court denied defendant's motion, stating that the prosecutor did not charge defendant with two separate and distinct home invasion offenses, but charged him with committing one offense under alternate theories and that, therefore, a specific unanimity instruction was not required. The trial court did not err, let alone plainly err, when it did so.
The acts presented as evidence of the underlying felony for defendant's first-degree home invasion charge were not "conceptually distinct," and "distinct proofs" were not provided for each alternative charge. See Cooks, 446 Mich. at 519....
To continue reading
Request your trial