Articles Posted in Criminal Appeals

Recently, Jesse Anthony Collins’ conviction for delivering 50 to 450 grams of heroin was vacated by the Michigan Court of Appeals, who stated that by allowing the prosecutor to aggregate several small deliveries of heroin (28 grams or less) into one drug crime, the trial court had erred. Collins’ case will now be sent back to trial court for resentencing.

There are certain elements that must be present in order for the prosecutor to prove a defendant’s case in regards to drug delivery. For example, to be convicted of delivery of 50 to 450 grams of heroin, it must be shown that the defendant did in fact deliver, that the amount involved was 50 to 450 grams, the illicit substance was heroin or a drug mixture containing heroin, and that the defendant had the knowledge he was delivering heroin. In the case of Jesse Collins, 28 grams was the most delivered in any single circumstance. Under Michigan’s statutory definition of drug delivery, the indication is that the amount of drug an individual is accused of delivering is that related to a single transfer, not several transfers over a prolonged time period.

Collins appealed the jury trial conviction for delivery of 50 to 450 grams of heroin before Douglas Shapiro, Kathleen Jansen and Karen Fort Hood, who found that the conviction was invalid. The appeals court remanded the case to trial court for vacation of the conviction, and for resentencing on other convictions including possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin. All of Collins’ separate convictions were remanded for resentencing due to the fact that the appeals court felt that these sentences may have been partially based on information that was not accurate.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys know that mistakes are made in the courtroom, as evidenced by the case above. This frequently leaves individuals who are convicted of a crime facing harsh penalties for a crime they may not be guilty of.

Continue reading

Robert Schwander, son of a Grand Traverse County sheriff’s department deputy, was sentenced to 40 to 70 years in prison by Circuit Judge Thomas Power after being convicted on a charge of second-degree murder. Now, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered Power to provide an explanation as to why the sentencing guidelines were exceeded in the case. Schwander was convicted for killing 16-year-old Carly Jean Lewis in June of 2011.

News reports claim that Schwander had lived with Lewis’s family on a temporary basis after being kicked out of his own home. When Lewis went to visit Schwander in an abandoned building where he was living at the time, she allegedly noticed that Schwander had possessions from her family’s home. The two allegedly fought before Lewis died; Schwander eventually revealed to police where he had buried her body, after denying that he had harmed her. Police found Lewis’s blood along with a pair of scissors in the abandoned building.

While several challenges the defense had brought forward were dismissed by the appeals panel, justices Douglas Shapiro and Joel Hoekstra determined the sentence handed down to Schwander to be “an extraordinary departure” from sentencing guidelines. While the majority of the panel felt that there was sufficient reason to justify some measure of departure from the sentencing guidelines due to Schwander’s failure to call for medical help and his betrayal of the victim’s family’s trust, they did find that the trial court did not clarify why the reasons justified imposing a minimum sentence on Schwander which was nearly double the highest minimum sentence under Michigan sentencing guidelines.

State sentencing guidelines typically call for minimum sentencing of 13 1/2 to 22 1/2 years for second-degree murder; two of the three appeals panel justices felt that Judge Power had failed to articulate on the reasons he exceeded sentencing guidelines by such an extreme measure.

Michigan homicide defense attorneys understand that criminal penalties in the state are extremely harsh, and that in some instances such as the above, an individual faces penalties which are a severe upward departure from minimum sentencing guidelines.

Continue reading

In August of 2011, Junior Lee Beebe Jr. was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend, 36-year-old Tonya Howarth, and 30-year-old Amy Henslee, Beebe’s cousin’s wife. He was convicted on a first-degree murder charge in the death of Howarth, and one count of second-degree murder in the death of Henslee.

Now, the Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the murder convictions, after Beebe’s attorneys argued there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Beebe was convicted of shooting the two women in January 2011, however a Michigan state police detective testified during the trial that Beebe claimed Howarth found Beebe and Henslee together in the house trailer where he lived, and proceeded to shoot Henslee. Beebe told the detective that he shot Howarth in self defense. The bodies of Howarth and Henslee were found in close proximity to the trailer in a shallow grave. Beebe did not testify in his own defense.

James Henslee, husband of Amy Henslee, said following the conviction that he was “thrilled” that his cousin was found guilty of murdering his wife. He further went on to say, “Where there’s God there’s a way and he came through today.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed with Beebe’s defense attorneys’ claims that the evidence against their client was insufficient, saying that the jury simply did not believe the story in which Beebe claimed Howarth shot Henslee, then acted in self-defense, and that Beebe was the only witness to the shootings.

Beebe was sentenced to two life terms in the killings.

Michigan murder appeals attorneys know that judges are supposed to remain impartial when instructing a jury or answering questions, and that jurors are supposed to have no preconceived opinions regarding defendants in murder cases; however, this is not always the case.

Continue reading

Alfred Harris Jr., a former Spaulding Township man who is now 42 years old, was convicted on 14 counts including three counts of second-degree CSC and eleven counts of first-degree CSC by a jury in August of 2011. Harris was sentenced to 18 years plus in prison.

Harris appealed his conviction on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence to show that he was living in the home with the alleged victim, which was the reason he was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Had Harris not lived in the home, the charges would have been third-degree, resulting in a lighter sentence. However, appellate judges Jane Markey, Michael Kelly, and David Sawyer felt that there was sufficient evidence to show that Harris did live in the home.

An Mlive.com news article from August of 2011 indicates that Harris allegedly assaulted a teenage boy who lived in the home 14 times. The assaults took place in Saginaw Township between September and November of 2009.

The appellate judges wrote that the defendant did live in the home for approximately two months, and that he ate meals and had clothes there. Additionally, testimony from witnesses indicated that Harris was staying in the victim’s bedroom at one point, and that the boy saw Harris as a father figure. The judges went on to day that, “In other words, Harris was not just a person who slept on the couch.”

Harris remains in the Saginaw Correctional Facility, where he will spend 18 years and nine months to 40 years. His earliest possible release date is February of 2029. Should Harris remain incarcerated for 40 years, he will be 80 upon completion of his sentence.

As Michigan criminal appeal attorneys, we realize that those convicted on charges of sexual assault, rape, and other sex-related crimes face serious and often life-changing consequences. Substantial prison time and being labeled a sex offender for life are two of the penalties many face. Frequently, careers, futures, and lives are ruined forever. Depending on the facts of the case, it may be possible to have your conviction overturned.

Continue reading

In 1993, Lativia Johnson, who was 8 years old at the time, was shot while getting a glass of milk in her kitchen. The killer remained a mystery until 2011, when Robert Lee Gaines II and Bobby Brown were arrested for the killing.

Bobby Brown told police that he had been robbed and assaulted outside of a party store located near the Johnson residence on Ionia Avenue SW. According to prosecutors, Gaines shot the girl after he and Brown returned to the area. Gaines claimed that he did not pull the trigger, but did tell the court that after not cooperating with detectives during the investigation, he felt guilty.

On Monday, January 9, Gaines was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison after being convicted of the killing. During testimony, Brown claimed that Gaines waited in a car while Gaines went inside the home armed with a gun, then returned and told Brown he had shot someone. News reports state that during the trial, there was little clue as to what motivated Gaines, who was well-liked and a sports star, to become involved.

Jennifer Tabor, Gaines’ former girlfriend, testified that on the night of the shooting, he told her that ‘someone small’ fell after he and Brown chased the individuals they had been in an altercation with outside of the party store into the home and Brown fired a shot.

Gaines appealed the conviction, presenting arguments that the prosecution should not have been allowed to present evidence including what he had told Jennifer Tabor, which included that he should respond “Hell, no” if requested to take a polygraph test. The appeals panel felt that this evidence indicated that Gaines had a guilty conscious.

Gaines also argued that reasons for departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines were not articulated by Kent County Circuit Judge James Redford. Ultimately, Gaines conviction was upheld by the appeals panel.

Michigan murder appeals lawyers know that individuals who have been convicted of serious or violent crimes are often innocent, and unfortunately spend many years behind bars. Mistakes are made in the legal process; often times, jurors are sympathetic to victims and their families, and may lose sight of the facts in the case.

Continue reading

On Friday January 11, the Michigan Court of Appeals threw out David Allan’s extortion conviction after it was determined that during Allan’s 2011 trial, the jury was not properly sworn in. According to The Detroit News, Allan’s attorney challenged the conviction for conspiring with his daughter to commit extortion, because the jurors were not given the oath.

In 2010, Allan’s daughter allegedly threatened to accuse a man she had sex with for months after meeting him at a strip club of rape if he did not pay her. Randy Davidson, Allan’s appellate attorney, discovered that the jury had not been sworn in while reviewing court transcripts.

Theodore Bachakes, the alleged victim of the extortion plot, testified that he and Allan had consensual sex. Jennifer Allan and her father were accused of taking at least $2,000 from Bachakes in the scheme. David Allan was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison in the July 2011 trial.

The appeals court found in a 3-0 decision that at the beginning of Allan’s trial, the jury did not take an oath, which would ensure their impartiality during the court proceedings. Jackson Circuit Court “committed a plain error that requires reversal by failing to swear in the jury,” the appeals court stated.

Jennifer Allan was sentenced to two to 20 years in prison in her July 2011 trial; her conviction and sentence stand.

Apparently, the jurors in the 2011 trial were sworn-in during the selection process, but were not sworn-in prior to opening statements. The appeals court said that it is important that jurors are sworn-in before the presentation of evidence, because it is not a “mere formality.” Judges Jane Beckering, E. Thomas Fitzgerald and William Whitbeck all agreed that, “It is a long-standing common-law requirement that is necessary to protect defendants’ constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.”

Prosecutors did not agree that a mistake should require a new trial. Jerry Schrotenboer, Jackson County assistant prosecutor, called the case “extraordinarily unusual” and said that the decision will be appealed.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys understand that mistakes are made during the criminal justice process; there are also instances in which innocent individuals are convicted for crimes they did not commit.

Continue reading

In February of 2011, 18-year-old Jonathan Dargis died after being stabbed multiple times and struck in the head with a shovel in a wooded area behind his mother’s home in Zeeland Township. Joshua Hambley was charged with first-degree murder in the killing, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

News reports claim that Hambley, who is now 20 years old, lured Dargis to the wooded area under the pretense of an AirSoft battle. Hambley killed Dargis because he had allegedly sexually assaulted Hambley’s ex-girlfriend in the days before the murder, according to news sources.

Hambley appealed his conviction, admitting that prosecutors had proven elements of second-degree murder, but claiming that sufficient evidence to convict him of first-degree murder was not provided. Hambley’s first-degree murder conviction was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals. In the ruling dated January 15, judges found that “the evidence of premeditation and deliberation presented at trial was overwhelming.”

In Michigan, a second-degree murder conviction offers the possibility of parole. Ron Frantz, Ottawa County Prosecutor, presented substantial evidence that the Appeals Court found clearly indicated both premeditation and deliberation in the murder. According to the Holland Sentinel, statements made both through text messages and verbally made it clear that Hambley intended to kill Dargis. Testimony was presented at trial regarding a phone conversation Hambley had with his girlfriend in which she allegedly heard the victim’s plea to “call an ambulance or just kill me.”

The medical examiner testified at Hambley’s trial that Dargis would have likely survived if medical attention had been sought for his stab wounds. News reports reveal that Hambley had also written in his journal about what to do with Dargis, and had told police in a written statement about his anger with Dargis, and how he planned to take his life in the following days.

The Michigan Court of Appeals found all of the evidence, including Hambley’s plan to lure Dargis out into the woods, sufficient proof that the murder was premeditated and deliberate.

Individuals who have been convicted on murder charges or other serious crimes often feel that the sentence handed out is extremely harsh punishment in comparison to the crime committed; other times, those who are completely innocent find themselves sitting in prison. Michigan criminal appeals lawyers know that mistakes are made in the judicial system, which is made evident by the rising number of verdicts overturned in the appeals process.

Continue reading

In 2011, three men were convicted on charges of murder in a 2002 drive-by murder in Adrian. The Michigan Court of Appeals has implemented orders that the defendants, Paul and Peter Daniel, 46, and Leonard Dee McGlown, also 46, may bring motions for a new trial following an appeal hearing later this month.

The defendants are scheduled to go before Judge Margaret M.S. Noe in an evidentiary hearing on January 24 and 25. According to Adrian publication The Daily Telegram, these two dates are when testimony will be heard regarding a defense claim that the case in the 2011 trial was prejudiced due to restraints used in the trial, although the article does not reveal what those restraints were.

A joint trial in October of 2011 ended with guilty verdicts for all three men, who were convicted on charges of first-degree murder and weapons charges. The three defendants were sentenced to terms of mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole.

A renewed investigation into a 2002 shooting led to the arrest of the three men in 2010. The shooting involved the death of 20-year-old Marcus Newsom of Adrian; it is believed that Newsom was shot as a result of mistaken identity.

On Monday January 7, Judge Noe and Prosecutor Jonathan Poer met with attorneys appointed to represent the defendants for a discussion of the upcoming evidentiary hearing. The defendants were ordered to be present at the upcoming hearing by Judge Noe at a December 3rd hearing.

Michigan murder appeals attorneys know that even those who have already been convicted of a crime may have another chance. Legal errors or mistakes made by the judge or jury can leave innocent people facing serious penalties. Lawyers who specialize in post-conviction services will thoroughly analyze your case to determine if there may be other options that could result in your convicted being overturned.

Continue reading

Isaac Decrais Harris was convicted in 2005 by a jury on firearms and armed robbery charges. He recently sought to appeal the conviction, which he is serving a 14 to 30 year prison term for. Harris denied that he was the individual who robbed a Clark gasoline station in Adrian. News reports indicate that a video recording from a security camera at the location reveal the face of the individual who robbed the gas station, although they do not state that it is Harris, who denies it is his face in the video.

On January 7, 2013, Lenawee County Prosecutor Burke Castleberry announced that the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear Harris’s appeal. An order from the court stated that Harris had failed to establish a claim.

Michigan theft and property crime appeals attorneys understand that individuals who are convicted on charges of robbery, shoplifting and other theft-related crimes face serious penalties, and often ruined lives. Not only might an individual face prison or jail time and monetary fines, a criminal record can make employers reluctant to hire that individual; it is also likely to affect a current career or job. Additionally, any time a criminal background check is run on someone with a criminal conviction, it makes it difficult for that person to obtain a scholarship, purchase or rent a home, even get approved for a loan. Essentially, it affects the individual’s entire life.

The penalties an individual faces when convicted on theft or property crimes may vary depending on a number of factors, including the individual’s criminal history, whether a weapon was involved, the amount of property or money taken, and more. When a weapon is used in the commission of a crime or a threat even implies that the individual has a weapon (even if it is not true), penalties will be substantially more severe if that person is convicted.

If you have been convicted on a robbery charge, you may believe that you must simply serve out your sentence, and that nothing further can be done. However, this is not the case in some circumstances. It may that you are eligible to appeal your sentence, or file a motion for Ginther Hearing if you believe you were convicted due to inadequate or ineffective counsel.

Continue reading

There are countless instances in which criminal defendants in Michigan have been convicted of a crime when in fact they are innocent. In many cases, even someone who is guilty has been penalized far more harshly than necessary. This means that not only does the defendant suffer, his or her family does as well. Judges are not always right in their rulings. Whether you have been convicted on charges related to sex crimes, drunk driving, homicide, drug possession or any criminal offense, having a Michigan criminal appeals lawyer on your side can often result in having a guilty verdict reversed.

Why do these “mistakes” happen? Sometimes there are mistakes made by a defense lawyer in the process of defending his or her client at trial. Other times judges hand down punishment that is simply too harsh in comparison to the crime committed. Michigan criminal appellate attorneys are extremely knowledgeable in these matters, and can scrutinize a criminal case in order to determine if a basis may exist for having an inappropriate sentence reversed, or even a conviction overturned. Essentially, convicted defendants are given another opportunity to present their case in front of a higher court in the criminal appeals process; these courts include the Michigan Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The fact is, appealing a verdict or sentencing is a very common practice in criminal cases. However, it is essential that you choose a capable, experienced attorney who has dealt with these types of situations many times, as they are often complex in nature. Often times, a criminal appellate lawyer who is not familiar with your case can carefully analyze the situation, and potentially uncover details that were missed initially simply due to the fact that there is a “fresh” set of eyes perusing the information – and important details are often missed by those who are involved in a case from beginning to end, as it’s easy to get mired down in the details, and even complacent – which means inadvertently overlooking vital information.

Continue reading