People v. Hurless

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER SCOTT HURLESS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 366066

Court of Appeals of Michigan

September 19, 2024

UNPUBLISHED

Barry Circuit Court LC No. 2022-000635-FH.

Before: FEENEY, P.J., AND RICK and N. P. HOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals by leave granted^[1] his sentences following guilty pleas to possession of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i); stalking, MCL 750.411h; and trespass to land, MCL 750.552. The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12 to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years' imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine, 87 days' imprisonment for stalking, and 87 days' imprisonment for trespass to land. This case asks us to decide whether the prohibitions against a sentencing court relying on acquitted conduct as an aggravating factor, as outlined in People v Beck 504 Mich. 605, 625-630; 939 N.W.2d 213 (2019), extend to the conduct underlying the dismissal of charges based on the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). We conclude that they do not, and therefore affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action originates from defendant's arrest after a three-year pattern of stalking the victim.^[2] Defendant previously had a relationship with the victim's sister and was the biological father of the victim's nephew, but the victim herself had no other immediate connection to him. In addition to harassing the victim, defendant engaged in similar behavior toward the victim's sister for 12 years. Despite the years-long pattern of conduct, defendant was not convicted of stalking the victim prior to this case. Defendant's conduct toward the victim, however, formed the basis for a 2019 home-invasion charge. Defendant raised an NGRI defense to that charge, which the court accepted as valid. The charge was thereafter dismissed.

In mid-September 2022, the victim's home security system captured defendant walking through her backyard. The police were dispatched to the victim's home in the early evening. When they arrived, the victim informed the police that in the past, defendant had broken into her home, left objects on the front porch, including dog feces, cookies, coffee, and hot chocolate, and shown up to her house unexpectedly. She showed them photos "taken that morning" depicting defendant on her property. The victim also showed the officers defendant's YouTube channel. There, he had videos in which he directly addressed the victim, including one in which he used expletives and said he would "beat [her] face in[to] the floor" and called her a "whore." The victim told the police that law enforcement had recently warned defendant to stay away from her property. The victim indicated that she felt threatened by defendant's behavior.

The police contacted defendant about his presence on the victim's property. He admitted being on the victim's property, but, according to the presentence investigation report (PSIR), stated that he was "only passing by." Defendant indicated that he did not know he was intimidating or making the victim uncomfortable.^[3] The police arrested defendant for trespassing and stalking based on his repeated unwelcome contact and the history between the parties. After they made the arrest, the police searched defendant and discovered a glass pipe and a small plastic bag containing crystals and powder on his person. The substance in the bag was later tested and determined to be approximately 0.1 grams of methamphetamine. According to the PSIR, defendant acknowledged having used methamphetamine on the day of his arrest.

The prosecution charged defendant with one count of possession of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i), with a fourth-offense habitual offender enhancement, MCL 769.12; one count of stalking, MCL 750.411h; and one count of trespass to land, MCL 750.552. The possession charge is a felony, ordinarily punishable by up to 10 years in prison, but the fourthoffense habitual offender notice increased the statutory maximum punishment to life imprisonment. The stalking and trespass charges are both misdemeanors, with respective statutory maximum punishments of one year in jail and 90 days in jail. The habitual offender notice had no impact on their penalties. At a mid-October 2022 plea hearing, defendant pleaded guilty to each count.

In early December 2022, the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) prepared a PSIR for defendant. In the PSIR, MDOC calculated a minimum sentencing guideline range of 10 to 46 months' imprisonment for his conviction of possession of methamphetamine, based on a total prior record variable (PRV) score of 100 points, placing him at PRV level F, and a total offense variable (OV) score of zero, placing him at OV level I. The PSIR documented defendant's criminal history, which included 12 adult convictions of varying severity between 1999 and the 2022 sentencing. Notably, it also included two cases from June 2019 that resulted in NGRI dismissals: one involving assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer, and one involving second-degree home invasion. At least one of these NGRI dismissals (the home invasion) related to conduct toward the victim. MDOC recommended a sentence of 2 to 10 years (a within-guidelines sentence) for the drug possession and sentences of 87 days for both misdemeanors.

Defendant was sentenced in December 2022. During the hearing, the victim read her victim-impact statement, describing the "constant state of fear," "anxiety," and "helplessness" she felt as a result of defendant's conduct. The victim impact statement referenced defendant's prior acquittals by reason of insanity. In imposing its sentence, the trial court stated its belief that defendant was dangerous. The trial court also considered defendant's lengthy criminal record and history of recidivism. Referencing defendant's crimes "go[ing] back to 2000," the trial court noted several that were "dismissed because of his mental health." Regarding the two acquittals by reason of insanity, the trial court stated:

Resisting, obstructing a police officer, not guilty by insanity. Still committed the crime. 2019, again, another home invasion, not guilty by reason of insanity.

Another crime that to me, mental health issues aren't more valuable than my safety. I don't think we get people to run around the streets, I'm mentally ill so I get to rape you. I'm mentally ill so I get [to] steal your car. I-I think that's crazy. I think-I think it's wrong. And now we get just a few years later this charge. He's very dangerous. He's very, very dangerous in my eyes.

The trial court indicated that it would depart from the guidelines, relying on the seriousness of defendant's convictions, the need to protect society, and the failure of previous rehabilitative efforts to justify the departure. The trial court sentenced defendant to 120 to 240 months' (or 10 to 20 years') imprisonment for the possession of methamphetamine conviction, a minimum sentence that was 74 months above the recommended minimum range of 10 to 46 months. Despite its stated concerns regarding the conduct underpinning the stalking and trespassing convictions, the trial court sentenced defendant to 87 days' credit for time served for both convictions. This was nine months below the statutory maximum for the stalking conviction and three days below the statutory maximum for trespass. After imposing the sentence, the trial court stated:

You have no right-no right to break into people's homes. You have no right to peek into people's windows. You have no right [to] invade people's privacy and make them feel uncomfortable, unsafe. No right whatsoever. None. When and if you get out of prison, if you come back to Barry County, you're going to get the same thing, only more.

This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. BECK'S APPLICATION TO NGRI DISMISSALS

Defendant first argues that trial court's consideration of acquitted conduct when sentencing him violated his due-process rights. We disagree.

We generally review "constitutional claims under a de novo standard." People v Brown, 339 Mich.App. 411, 419; 984 N.W.2d 486 (2021). Defendant failed to raise his argument regarding the trial court's consideration of acquitted conduct during sentencing, and it is therefore unpreserved. See People v Anderson, 322 Mich.App. 622, 634; 912 N.W.2d 607 (2018) ("To preserve a sentencing issue for appeal, a defendant must raise the issue at sentencing, in a proper motion for resentencing, or in a proper motion to remand filed in the court of appeals."). See also People v Brown, 326 Mich.App. 185, 191-192; 926 N.W.2d 879 (2018) (noting that to preserve a constitutional claim a defendant must "raise an objection on the ground" also raised on appeal); MCL 769.34(10); MCR 6.429(C).

We review unpreserved issues "for plain error affecting a defendant's substantial rights." People v Heft, 299 Mich.App. 69, 78; 829 N.W.2d 266 (2012). See also People v Stokes, 333 Mich.App. 304, 307; 963 N.W.2d 643 (2020) (applying plain-error analysis to an unpreserved issue involving consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing). To obtain relief under the plain-error rule, a defendant must prove that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, and (3) that the plain error affected their substantial rights-in other words, the error affected the outcome of the proceedings. People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 763; 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). Even if a defendant satisfies these three requirements, reversal is only warranted if the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings independent of the defendant's innocence. Id. at 763-764. Sometimes identified as a fourth prong of plain-error...