People v. Edwards

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KELWIN DWAYNE EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 354647

Court of Appeals of Michigan

November 18, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 13-000329-01-FC

Before: Borrello, P.J., and Jansen and Boonstra, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of assault with intent to murder (AWIM), MCL 750.317, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. Defendant was originally sentenced to a prison term of 51 months to 11 years for his AWIM conviction, consecutive to a statutory two-year prison term for his felony-firearm conviction. He was also assessed court costs; defendant has paid $1, 041.20 and still owes $135.52 as of August 19, 2020. After two prior appeals, ^[1] and on his second resentencing defendant was resentenced to the same sentences. Defendant now appeals by right, only challenging the constitutionality of the statute authorizing trial courts to assess court costs, MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii). We affirm.

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant non-fatally shot another person during an argument. As noted above, defendant was convicted by a jury of AWIM and felony-firearm and was sentenced as described. This Court rejected defendant's arguments in his first appeal by right and affirmed his convictions and sentences.^[2] Defendant applied for leave to appeal this Court's decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to review defendant's sentence under the then-newly-issued People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358; 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015), and it denied defendant's application for leave in all other respects. People v Edwards, 498 Mich. 903 (2015).

In 2016, the trial court held a resentencing hearing and resentenced defendant to a prison term of 1 to 15 years for the AWIM conviction and two years for the felony-firearm conviction. The court stated that it would have imposed a different sentence if not for the mandatory nature of the sentencing guidelines at the time of defendant's original sentencing, and gave its rationale for imposing a lower minimum sentence. The prosecution applied for leave to appeal the resentencing to this Court, arguing that the trial court erroneously assessed an offense variable, and that the below-guidelines sentence was unreasonable and disproportionate given the seriousness of defendant's crime. This Court granted the application, found that defendant's sentence was disproportionate because the trial court had only considered mitigating factors as to defendant and did not consider the seriousness of the crime, and remanded the case to the trial court for a second resentencing.^[3]

As stated, the trial court then resentenced defendant to his original sentences. This appeal followed. Defendant does not challenge his sentences on this appeal; the only issue presented is defendant's claim that the statute authorizing trial courts to assess convicted criminal defendants court costs, MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), is unconstitutional.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To preserve a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, a defendant generally must challenge the constitutionality of the statute in the trial court, rather than raise the issue for the first time on appeal. People v Vandenberg, 307 Mich.App. 57, 61; 859 N.W.2d 229 (2014). Defendant failed to challenge the constitutionality of MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) in the trial court, although he filed a motion in this Court to remand for an evidentiary hearing on the constitutionality of the statute, which was denied.^[4] Although some sentencing issues may be preserved by a defendant's motion to remand with this Court, such as a challenge to the scoring of sentencing guidelines, see People v Francisco, 474 Mich. 82, 88-89; 711 N.W.2d 44 (2006), defendant has presented this Court with no authority indicating that a facial constitutional challenge to the statute governing the award of court costs is such an issue.. However, an appellate court may still consider a constitutional challenge if a defendant did not make a challenge below. People v Wiley, 324 Mich.App. 130, 150; 919 N.W.2d 802 (2018). This Court generally reviews constitutional questions de novo. Id. A statute challenged on constitutional grounds "is presumed to be constitutional and will be construed as such unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent." People v Solloway, 316 Mich.App. 174, 184; 891 N.W.2d 255 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) is unconstitutional because it compromises judicial impartiality and denies defendants the right to due process and a fair trial. We disagree.

"Statutes must be construed as proper under the constitution if possible. The party opposing the statute bears the burden of overcoming the presumption and proving the statute unconstitutional." Wiley, 324 Mich.App. at 151. The Michigan Supreme Court has explained:

We exercise the power to declare a law unconstitutional with extreme caution, and we never exercise it where serious doubt exists with regard to the conflict. Every reasonable presumption or intendment must be indulged in favor of the validity of an act, and it is only when invalidity appears so clearly as to leave no room for reasonable doubt that it violates some provision of the Constitution that a court will refuse to sustain its validity . . . . When considering a claim that a statute is unconstitutional, the Court does not inquire into the wisdom of the legislature. [In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2011 PA 38, 490 Mich. 295, 307-308; 806 N.W.2d 683 (2011) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).]

"A constitutional challenge to the validity of a statute can be brought in one of two ways: by either a facial challenge or an as-applied challenge." In re Forfeiture of 2000 GMC Denali & Contents, 316 Mich.App. 562, 569; 892 N.W.2d 388 (2016). In an as-applied challenge, the claimant has alleged "a present infringement or denial of a specific right or of a particular injury in [the] process of actual execution of government action." Bonner v City of Brighton, 495 Mich. 209, 223 n 27; 848 N.W.2d 380 (2014) (quotation marks omitted). In contrast, a "facial challenge involves a claim that a legislative enactment is unconstitutional on its face, in that there is no set of circumstances under which the enactment is constitutionally valid." People v Wilder, 307 Mich.App. 546, 556; 861 N.W.2d 645 (2014). A defendant bears the burden of establishing that a statute would not be constitutionally valid under any circumstances. Oakland Co v State, 325 Mich.App. 247, 260; 926 N.W.2d 11 (2018).

Defendant does not argue that the trial judge failed to act with impartiality only when assessing him costs under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), but rather argues that the statute creates an unconstitutional situation in which trial judges cannot be impartial because it is necessary to convict defendants in order to assess court costs that will fund court operations, thereby violating the due process rights of all criminal defendants in the state. In other words, defendant brings a facial challenge to MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), and is therefore required to show that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be constitutional. Wilder, 307 Mich.App. at 556.

Defendant makes three arguments concerning the constitutionality of MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii): the statute creates pressure for judges to convict defendants and impose costs; the statute undermines defendants' due process rights to a neutral magistrate; and the statute creates a separation of powers violation by infringing on courts' duties to act as fair and neutral magistrates. This Court recently considered each of these arguments and rejected them in ...