People v. Miles, Docket No. 89630
| Decision Date | 24 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 89630 |
| Citation | 156 Mich.App. 431,402 N.W.2d 34 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devouras C. MILES, Defendant-Appellant. 156 Mich.App. 431, 402 N.W.2d 34 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[156 MICHAPP 432] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of the Crim. Div., Research, Training and Appeals, and Kim D. Johnson, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Robert E. Slameka, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before ALLEN, P.J., and CYNAR and LIVO, * JJ.
On September 9, 1985, following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in violation of M.C.L. Sec. 750.321; M.S.A. Sec. 28.553. The sentencing guidelines recommended a minimum sentence range of from three to eight years. On September 18, 1985, defendant was sentenced to prison for not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years. Defendant appeals as of right.
On June 30, 1985, at approximately 7:30 p.m. defendant and Cynthia Curry went to visit Kelly Leonard, a neighbor of defendant who lived on San Juan Street in the City of Detroit. At that time, the defendant, Cynthia Curry and Kelly Leonard went to a local liquor store and Leonard purchased ten forty-ounce bottles of Colt 45 beer, two half pints of Martel cognac, and one bottle of white Wild Irish Rose wine.
Thereafter, the three individuals returned to Leonard's house and began consuming the alcoholic beverages. At approximately 8:30 p.m. that [156 MICHAPP 433] evening, Curry left Leonard's house. In the meantime, defendant and Leonard continued drinking the alcoholic beverages. At about 10:00 p.m., Curry returned with another girlfriend. Curry had a discussion with Leonard, and Curry and her friend left Leonard's house.
At approximately midnight, Curry returned once more to Leonard's home and, according to defendant's testimony, appeared in distress. By this time Leonard had fallen asleep. Defendant proceeded to get Curry a towel from the bathroom since she was crying and she appeared extremely upset. While defendant was busy getting Curry a towel, she took $300 from Leonard's pocket and fled from the house.
Upon defendant's return from the bathroom, he realized that Curry had just stolen Leonard's money. Defendant then set out towards Curry's house, which was half a block away from Leonard's home. When defendant reached Curry's home, he discovered that she was not there. Thereafter, defendant started walking back to Leonard's home. On his way back to Leonard's home, defendant encountered Deyone Gilliam, Curry's boyfriend. Gilliam and defendant fought briefly and, afterwards, defendant returned to Leonard's home.
After defendant returned to Leonard's home, Leonard obtained his revolver and the two of them proceeded back toward Curry's home. Defendant and Gilliam began fighting once more. Gilliam bit the defendant on the left side of his cheek. Defendant than lost all control and stabbed Gilliam. Gilliam died shortly thereafter. Two weeks later, defendant turned himself in to the police.
At trial, several witnesses recounted the second fight between defendant and Gilliam. Leonard testified that upon discovering that Curry had stolen his money, he and defendant proceeded to her [156 MICHAPP 434] home. They met Gilliam, and defendant and Gilliam began fighting and, after several blows were exchanged, defendant produced a knife and stabbed Gilliam. Vernell Britton, a resident of San Juan Street, testified that he was awakened at 2:00 a.m. the morning of July 1, 1985, by noises outside on the street. He saw defendant fighting with Gilliam. Gilliam was attempting to escape and he heard a third person state, "Shoot him in the head", and Gilliam ran.
Additionally, Detroit Police Officer Patrick Flanagan testified that he found the victim lying in an alley with a stab wound. The officer took a statement from the victim wherein he told the officer that defendant had stabbed him.
The trial court convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter.
Defendant submits two issues for our consideration. First, defendant contends that the trial court erred by not indicating on the record the reasons for imposing sentence. We agree.
Defendant claims that the trial court failed to articulate on the record its reason for imposing the sentence as required by People v. Coles, 417 Mich. 523, 339 N.W.2d 440 (1983). Under Coles, to aid appellate review, the trial judge is required to indicate the criteria considered in imposing sentence and the reasons which support the court's decision regarding the nature and length of punishment. Coles, supra, 550 339 N.W.2d 440. The purpose of the Coles articulation requirement is to improve the justification for the sentence and to develop a rational policy on which to base sentencing in the future. Coles, supra, 549, 339 N.W.2d 440.
Prior to imposing sentence, the judge, in response to defendant's request for mercy, stated it was difficult to be merciful when a life had just been "wiped out" because of defendant's action. [156 MICHAPP 435] Defendant claims that this did not constitute a reason for the sentence imposed and, alternatively, even if it is a reason for the sentence, it is insufficient under People v. Snow, 386 Mich. 586, 194 N.W.2d 314 (1972), Coles, supra, and People v. Ross, 145 Mich.App. 483, 495-496, 378 N.W.2d 517 (1985), because the judge did not use the proper criteria as enunciated in those decisions.
The people argue that the statement by the judge with respect to a "life that has just been wiped out" does constitute a reason for the imposition of the sentence. Even though this reason was not specifically endorsed in the Snow decision 1 as an appropriate factor to be considered before sentencing, it is a valid factor for consideration nonetheless. In support of this position, the people refer to the Coles opinion, which stated that the Snow factors are "not exhaustive, and we do not purport to instruct the trial courts on every criterion which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rodriquez
...guidelines systems that allowed for sentences in excess of the recommended range in various circumstances, see People v. Miles, 156 Mich.App. 431, 437, 402 N.W.2d 34, 37 (1986) (remanding for the trial court to state reasons for upward departure); Staats v. State, 717 P.2d 413, 422 (Alaska ......