PEOPLE OF MI V THOMAS LEE JACKSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
February 17, 2011
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 294964
Livingston Circuit Court
LC No. 05-015001-FH
THOMAS LEE JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and FITZGERALD and BECKERING, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree home invasion, MCL
750.110a(3), and one count of conspiracy to commit second-degree home invasion, MCL
750.157a and MCL 750.110a(3). The trial court sentenced defendant as an habitual offender,
third offense, MCL 769.11, to concurrent prison terms of 106 months to 30 years for each
conviction. Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted, raising issues related to his sentencing.
We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At the plea hearing, defendant admitted that he participated with another person in the
breaking and entering of two different houses. He indicated that he was aware that his codefendants were going to go into the houses without permission with the intent to steal and that
he was the “look out” and stayed in the car. He also indicated that items were in fact stolen from
the houses. Defendant further admitted that he made an agreement with another person to break
into the houses to steal items and that he would be the look out. The trial court found that the
plea was given understandingly, voluntarily, and accurately, and accepted the plea. The court
subsequently sentenced defendant as a third habitual offender to concurrent sentences of 106
months to 30 years, with zero days credit, to be served “consecutive to a sentence for which you
are on parole.” The court denied defendant sentencing credit because of defendant’s status as a
parolee.
II
Defendant argues that the trial court based its minimum sentence on facts not proven to a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in contravention of Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296; 124 S ct
2531; 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). He also argues that the trial court improperly scored offense
-1-
variables (“OV”) 13 and 16, and that he is entitled to sentence credit for the time spent in jail
between his arrest and sentencing.
A. THE DECISION IN BLAKELY
Our Supreme Court has held that Blakely does not apply to Michigan’s indeterminate
sentencing scheme. People v Drohan, 475 Mich 140, 164; 715 NW2d 778 (2006). Accordingly,
defendant’s argument that the trial court violated Blakely in scoring the guidelines is without
merit.
B. OV 13
Defendant challenges the scoring of 10 points for OV 13. The version of MCL 777.431
in existence at the time of defendant’s February 14, 2006, sentencing provided for a score of 10
points if the “offense was part of a pattern of felonious criminal activity involving a combination
of 3 or more crimes against a person or property . . .” MCL 777.43(1)(c). Additionally, MCL
777.43(2)(a) instructs that “all crimes within a 5-year period, including the sentencing offense,
shall be counted regardless of whether the offense resulted in a conviction.”
Here, defendant pleaded guilty to participating in a home invasion of a residence located
at 15580 Graves Road, to participating in a home invasion of a residence located at 17900 Dexter
Trail, and to conspiring with another individual to commit the home invasions. Defendant does
not dispute that the two second-degree home invasion convictions may be used to score OV 13
because those convictions are for crimes against persons. See MCL 777.16f. He asserts,
however, that the conspiracy conviction cannot be used to score OV 13 because conspiracy is a
public safety offense under MCL 777.18, not an offense against person or property. Defendant
further asserts that, if the conspiracy offense is not counted, there are no other offenses against
persons or property committed by defendant within 5 years of these offenses that may be
combined with the two home invasion convictions in order to establish the three convictions
necessary to sustain a 10-point score under 777.42(1)(c). We review this issue involving the
interpretation and application of the statutory guidelines de novo. People v Cannon, 481 Mich
152, 156; 749 NW2d 257 (2008).
A review of the presentence information report reveals that defendant did not engage in
any other criminal activities that were directed against persons or property within the 5 years
preceding the present convictions. The question, therefore, is whether defendant’s conspiracy
offense constitutes a separate crime against a person or property for purposes of scoring OV 13.
There is no published authority on the question whether a conspiracy conviction may be used to
score OV 13.
Conspiracy is designated as an offense against the public safety in MCL 777.18. At the
time of defendant’s sentencing, MCL 777.21(4) provided, “If the offender is being sentenced for
1
MCL 777.43 was amended by 2008 PA 562, effective April 1, 2009.
-2-
a violation described in Section 18 of this chapter [MCL 777.18], determine the offense class,
offense variable level, and prior record variable level based on the underlying offense.” 2000 PA
279, § 21 (emphasis added). The command of MCL 777.21(4) to determine the offense variable
level “based on the underlying offense” reflects the intent of the Legislature that the nature of the
underlying offense (and not the fact that a conspiracy had been committed) controls when and
how an offense variable is scored. Reading MCL 777.18, MCL 777.21(4) and MCL
777.43(1)(c) together as a harmonious whole, see The Cadle Co v City of Kentwood, 285 Mich
App 241, 249; 776 NW2d 145 (2009), the command of MCL 777.21(4) is sufficiently sweeping
in scope to have required the trial court to look to the nature of the conspiracy for which
defendant was convicted in this case when scoring OV 13.2 Defendant was convicted of
conspiring to commit home invasions. A home invasion is a crime against persons. Because the
underlying nature of the conspiracy involved a crime against persons, the conspiracy conviction
was properly used to score OV 13 in this case.3
C. OV 16
In light of our conclusion that the trial court properly scored, OV 13, any error in the
scoring of OV 16 is harmless. The trial court scored 5 points for OV 16. If those five points are
subtracted from the 15-point OV total, the remaining ten points assigned to OV 13 are sufficient
to maintain the OV level at II, MCL 777.64, and, therefore, the point reduction would not trigger
a need to rescore the guidelines. An erroneous score that would not, when corrected, result in a
different recommended range does not require resentencing. People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82,
89 n 8; 711 NW2d 44 (2006).
2
We note that this Court previously held in three unpublished cases decided on the same day by
the same panel that conspiracy convictions are not properly scored under OV 13 because they are
classified as crimes against public safety. See People v Williams, unpublished opinion per
curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 10, 2005 (Docket No. 253299); People v Barker,
unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 10, 2005 (Docket No.
253403); People v Johnson, unpublished per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 10,
2005 (Docket No. 253943). In addition to not being binding precedent, MCR 7.215(C)(1), we
also find these cases to be of limited persuasive value because the impact of MCL 777.21(4) on
the resolution of the claim that conspiracy convictions cannot properly be scored under OV 13
was not raised or discussed.
3
We note that because all 3 offenses involve crimes against persons, the trial court could
properly have scored 25 points for OV 13 under MCL 777.43(1)(b).
-3-
D. JAIL CREDIT
The trial court declined to award defendant sentence credit in light of defendant’s status
as a parolee. Any sentence credit must be applied to the sentence which defendant was still
serving while on parole. People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549, 552, 565-567; 773 NW2d 616 (2009);
People v Filip, 278 Mich App 635, 640-643; 754 NW2d 660 (2008). In Idziak, the Court
rejected arguments identical or similar to those now raised by defendant – i.e., that sentence
credit is required by MCL 769.11a, and the due process, equal protection, and double jeopardy
clauses. Idziak, 484 Mich at 568-570, 572-574. Thus, this argument is without merit.4
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
4
Two of the remaining issues raised by defendant relate to arguments raised by defendant in
support of granting the delayed application for leave to appeal and, therefore, need not be
addressed on appeal. Additionally, the issue regarding ineffective assistance of counsel appears
to have been raised to avoid the issue preservation requirements with regard to defendant’s
challenge to the scoring of the guidelines. Thus, this issue need not be addressed on appeal.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.