Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

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