Articles Posted in Criminal Appeals

On Tuesday August 6, Michigan Court of Appeals judges heard arguments presented by attorneys for 19-year-old Davontae Sanford, a developmentally disabled man who claims he was wrongly convicted of killing four people when he was 14 years old.

Sanford allegedly murdered the four individuals at an east-side drug house in 2007. While prosecutors in the case insist the right man was convicted due to Sanford confessing to the crime and pleading guilty, a convicted hit man confessed to committing the murders. According to a news article at Detroitnews.com, Vincent Smothers claims to have committed the murders; Sanford’s lawyers told the appeals judges that Smothers told investigators where a .45 caliber pistol used in the commission of the crime was located. They also said that Smother’s pants had gunshot residue, which further linked him to the murders.

According to Sanford’s mother, her son was arrested when he walked up to police officers who were at the scene of the crime, and told them he knew what had happened. While Sanford allegedly confessed to the murders, his attorneys state that his confession was coerced by police, and that the defendant did not have a parent or lawyer present during his interrogation. Taminko Sanford-Tillman, Sanford’s mother, claims that her son was at home during the time the murders were committed. At the time of the murders, Sanford was 14 years old and a special education student.

In March, former head of the Detroit Police Homicide Section William Rice was charged with lying under oath regarding the case. Rice is accused of lying about Sanford’s whereabouts at the time the murders took place. He is scheduled to go on trial in September, and could spend life in prison if found guilty of perjury in a capital case.

The Court of Appeals is expected to rule on the appeal request in three weeks. Judges on the panel who heard the arguments on Sanford’s behalf included Christopher Murray, Mark T. Boonstra, and David Sawyer.

It seems there are plenty of questions in this case; if Sanford did not commit the murders, it is a tragedy that he has been sentenced to 37-90 years for a crime he is innocent of. Michigan criminal appeals lawyers understand the complexity of these types of cases, and that winning an appeal requires special skill and expertise.

Continue reading

In a recent case involving the murder of Othell Lightfoot, the defendant, Deon Crawford, claimed that he shot Lightfoot in the face in self-defense, that he believed Lightfoot was reaching for a weapon. Crawford was charged with first-degree premeditated murder, however the jury acquitted him of this offense and convicted Crawford of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison. All of this stemmed from a car crash involving a stolen car which struck several parked vehicles.

At his trial, Crawford argued that he shot Lightfoot in self defense, because he believed the man had a weapon. Upon investigating the scene, police found that the deceased man’s hand was extended into the waist area of his pants. It was determined that the victim did not have a weapon, and the defendant admitted that prior to shooting Lightfoot, he did not actually see a weapon.

Ultimately, Crawford appealed his conviction on the charge of second-degree murder to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing that he should have been granted an acquittal based on his argument of self-defense.

The appeals court determined that Crawford’s claim of self-defense hinged on whether the defendant honestly and reasonably felt that the use of deadly force was necessary because his life was in immediate danger. None of the witnesses at trial testified that Crawford was not in danger, however one witness, David Hicks Jr. (the victim’s brother), testified that after Crawford fired the shot, his companion pushed Crawford’s arm down saying, “Hey, what ya doing?” Hicks also fled after being shot in the face, however Crawford continued to fire although he did not actually see a weapon. For these two reasons, the evidence at trial supported that Lightfoot’s actions were not perceived as an immediate threat to the defendant and his companion’s safety.

Crawford’s convictions were upheld by the Michigan appeals court, however his case was remanded back to court for correction of sentence related to felony-firearm charges.

In Michigan, an honest and reasonable belief that an individual’s life is in imminent danger supports justifiable homicide; the defendant’s actions are supposed to be judged solely on how the situation appeared to the defendant, and not others. In this case, it seems that Crawford may have had a better outcome had his companion not said, “Hey, what ya doing?” What does this say about Michigan’s handling of self-defense?

Continue reading

On July 16, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a final opinion in the case of Elijah Dujuan Key who was convicted of murder, home invasion, and other criminal charges in connection with the death of Melisa Ann Robinson. Key was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder, 25 to 50 years in prison for second-degree murder, 2 to 20 years in prison for first-degree home invasion, and given two years for felony firearm.

While the court of appeals did not overturn Key’s convictions, the court did vacate sentencing in part based on double jeopardy, although Key did not raise this issue in his appeal. The panel determined that Key could not be convicted on multiple murder charges arising from the death of one individual. Key was convicted on both felony murder and second-degree murder charges, which violates the constitutional protection against individuals being punished multiple times for a single offense. The appeals court affirmed Key’s conviction for first-degree felony murder, but vacated his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder.

Some of the arguments made by Key in his appeal included his belief that hearsay statements were erroneously admitted at trial in regards to Robinson’s fear of Key, the threats he allegedly made to her before her death, and other statements made by witnesses who were reportedly told these things by the decedent. Key also argued that prosecutors in the case made improper appeals to the jury to elicit sympathy for Robinson, and that the court abused its discretion by allowing into evidence a photo of the shotgun wound suffered by the deceased victim.

The appeals court did not agree with any of Key’s arguments so his conviction for felony murder still stands; however, the double jeopardy issue did result in the panel vacating the second-degree murder conviction and remanding it back to court for issuance of an amended judgment of sentence.

Continue reading

In February of this year, Terry Neil Bowling’s argument that the sentence he received for his conviction of second-degree murder was cruel or unusual punishment was denied by the Michigan Court of Appeals. However, the appeals court did find that a mistake had been made in calculating the amount of restitution Bowling would pay – the court ruled the initial restitution amount of $5,890.33 should be lowered by 10 cents.

Bowling was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Livonia Police Officer Larry Nehasil in 2011 in connection with a home invasion. According to a news article at the Oakland Press, Nehasil was in pursuit of Bowling and his brother when he was shot outside of the Walled Lake home he and his brother were accused of breaking in to. Bowling was also convicted of resisting/obstructing police and first-degree home invasion.

Initially, Bowling was charged with first-degree murder; however, he agreed to plead no contest to second-degree murder, along with the other charges. Following his conviction, Bowling was sentenced to 100 to 150 years in prison for the murder of Nehasil. He argued in his appeal that considering his age (49), he would spend the remained of his life in prison, and that the sentences for the crimes he was convicted of were excessive. The appeals court disagreed, ruling that the sentences were just.

Bowling appealed the appeals court’s ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court, and on Tuesday July 30 the court issued its ruling which stated that the court was “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court.” Bowling’s convictions and sentences will stand.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys understand that essentially, a sentence of 100 to 150 years is life in prison. Sentencing in this case does seem extremely harsh, however convincing the appeals court is not easily accomplished.

Continue reading

Whether you have been wrongly convicted of a sex or drug crime, robbery, or any serious criminal offense, it does not always mean that it is the end of the road. Additionally, there are times when the sentence given an individual by a judge is harsher than usual and you may want to consider appealing the sentence with the Michigan Court of Appeals. In either situation, it is critical that you consult with a seasoned Michigan criminal appeals attorney who is very familiar with the appeals process, and who has a winning track record in appellate matters.

Appealing a conviction or sentencing is not a simple matter; the fact is, without a skilled lawyer the chances of having a conviction overturned or a case being sent back to court for resentencing are not favorable. However, when you do have an experienced criminal appeals lawyer in your corner, it is often possible to reach the desired outcome.

There are many grounds on which an appeal may be made; police, prosecutors, and judges are all human, and mistakes can be made. Judges can be wrong in their rulings. Police may make mistakes in the course of an arrest. In the case of a DUI or drug offense, test results are not always reliable, as testing equipment may not be properly calibrated; human error can result in faulty results as well.

Appeals are quite common in cases involving criminal activity. Your Michigan appellate attorney may appeal sentencing, a conviction, or even an inappropriate decision by filing an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, or taking other action which may include Motion for Ginther Hearing, Motions to Set Aside a Conviction, Motion to Change or Withdraw a Plea, Writs of Habeas Corpus, and more.

Continue reading

In May of 2012, Bradford S. Mitchell was convicted of second-degree murder in the January 2011 beating death of Jay Kolhoff. Now, the Michigan Court of Appeals has reversed Mitchell’s conviction, clearing the way for a new trial.

Mitchell, a Saginaw resident, was charged by prosecutors with open murder after it was alleged that he was responsible for the death of Kolhoff, who lived in the same apartment complex in Saginaw’s West Side. According to a video-recorded police interview, Kolhoff owed Mitchell $5. When Mitchell went to Kolhoff’s apartment to collect the money, Kolhoff allegedly brought out a baseball bat, then swung it and struck Mitchell in the face. Mitchell told detectives that he eventually grabbed the baseball bat from the victim, then struck him once in the shoulder and once in the head, although he admitted he may have hit him more times.

Upon finding Kolhoff’s body, his best friend Mark Yelle said that there were stab wounds on the back of Kolhoff’s neck, according to a news article at Mlive.com.

Ultimately, Appeals Court appellate judges found that the jury in Mitchell’s trial should have been given the option to convict the defendant of voluntary manslaughter. In the original trial, Mitchell was convicted of carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent; the judges vacated this conviction after interpreting a statute.

Appellate judges found that prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendant killed in the heat of passion, that the passion was caused by adequate provocation, and there was not a lapse of time during which a reasonable person could control his passions in order to prove voluntary manslaughter. They went on to say that provocation is a circumstance that negates the presence of malice rather than an element of voluntary manslaughter.

During Mitchell’s trial, the jury asked Saginaw County Circuit Judge Robert L. Kaczmarek whether first- and second-degree murder were their only conviction options, which the judge confirmed. The appellate judges found that Kaczmarek erred in this case.

As is evidenced in this case, judges in criminal cases do make errors. Michigan criminal appeals attorneys understand that having a conviction reversed is not an easy task to accomplish, and requires the skill and expertise of an attorney experienced in this complex area of criminal defense.

Continue reading

In September of 2011, 45-year-old Rodney A. Slayton was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder in the 1992 strangulation death of Lynette Gibson, a mother of five children who was 39 years old at the time of her death. It was 18 years after the murder, which had become a cold case, before Slayton was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. It took the jury just 40 minutes to reach a verdict.

Slayton never confessed to the crime, although his ex-wife and her uncle testified at trial that he confessed to killing the woman by strangling Gibson with a seat belt as she sat in the passenger seat in his mother’s car.

While he has maintained his innocence in the murder, Slayton appealed his conviction arguing that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated, and that his Sixth Amendment right and two Michigan Department of Corrections prison rules were also violated in connection with a recorded interview with Sandra Slayton, his wife at the time, his ex-wife’s testimony, police questioning, and the evidence in general.

Sandra Slayton had participated as an agent willingly with the Cold Case Homicide Unit of the Saginaw Police Department’s Violent Crime Task Force, which is now defunct. Slayton argued in his appeal that prison rules regarding recorded conversations and eavesdropping were violated; he also challenged the testimony of his wife at the time the murder took place, Rachelle Carpenter. Carpenter testified that Slayton told her that he had killed Gibson, and that she assumed he was telling the truth. Carpenter also mentioned that Slayton had been arrested in the past for domestic violence, although the judge in the case instructed the jury to disregard that statement. It was on this point that Slayton argued his attorney should have motioned for a mistrial.

Ultimately, appellate judges Karen M. Fort Hood, Peter D. O’Connell, and E. Thomas Fitzgerald disagreed with Slayton’s arguments and upheld his conviction.

Michigan post-conviction defense lawyers know that winning an appeal is no easy task, and that without an experienced and knowledgeable attorney who is skilled in this area of the law, the chances of winning are slim.

Continue reading

40-year-old Tracy Russell was convicted in March of 2012 of aggravated stalking and larceny from a building in connection with allegedly stalking his former girlfriend and stealing her heirloom jewelry as she was recovering from cancer surgery. He was sentenced to two to five years in prison by Jackson County Circuit Judge Susan Beebe in April of last year.

Russell appealed his conviction and sentence to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing that the prosecution should not have been allowed by the trial court to present evidence that Russell had stalked a former girlfriend, an act that he was not charged with. Russell also raised other issues with the appeals court which were not described in a news article at Mlive.com.

Russell’s alleged victim, Kimberly VanSyckle, testified in court that Russell sent her at least 50 text messages and called her nearly 1,000 times between early August and early September of 2011. At the time VanSyckle was recovering from breast cancer surgery, and said that she got to the point where she couldn’t take the constant phone calls and texts anymore. VanSyckle testified that she and Russell had lived together the previous year, and that she suspected he had stolen heirloom jewelry she had stored in a dresser, jewelry that her deceased mother had given her.

On June 27 of this year, appellate judges rejected Russell’s contentions and affirmed his conviction and sentencing.

Michigan attorneys who practice in the area of criminal appeals know it is critical that individuals who feel they have been wrongly convicted or unfairly sentenced obtain the services of a lawyer with much experience and success in criminal appeals. This is a highly complex process which cannot be handled successfully by an attorney with little or no experience with appellate matters.

Continue reading