PEOPLE OF MI V JUSTIN WALLACE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 18, 2003
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 242326
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-005668
JUSTIN WALLACE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Zahra and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Justin Wallace, a juvenile, was charged with first-degree murder1 and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.2 A jury convicted Wallace of
voluntary manslaughter3 and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced Wallace as an adult to
two years’ imprisonment for the felony firearm conviction to be served consecutively with 10 to
15 years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter conviction. In a prior appeal, this Court confirmed
Wallace’s convictions but remanded to the trial court for resentencing.4 The trial court
resentenced Wallace to the same terms listed above and he now appeals as of right. We affirm.
I. Basic Facts And Procedural History
All of the issues that Wallace raises on appeal relate to his sentencing. At the first
sentencing hearing, the trial court decided to sentence Wallace as an adult after recounting
evidence presented during trial related to his actions and statements before the shooting and his
acts of concealment after the shooting:
1
MCL 750.316(1)(a).
2
MCL 750.227b(1).
3
MCL 750.321.
4
People v Wallace, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 29,
2002 (Docket No. 227046).
-1-
Prior to the killing, a gun owned by the Defendant’s … grandfather …
disappeared. It was later determined that the weapon used to kill in this case was
that same gun.
The Defendant had stated prior to the killing some days, some time, some
substantial time before the killing his disapproval of Mr. Alexander Charles,
stated whatever reasons he had for that disapproval, dislike. Stated to persons that
he had an animus toward Mr. Charles. Stated it to at least two, possibly three
persons shortly before Mr. Charles was killed.
When Mr. Charles was a visitor in the Defendant’s home, at the
Defendant’s suggestion, there was an agreement to go to a distant area from the
community, a relatively secluded area near a creek, some distance from the
community in which the Defendant lived, for the purpose of smoking marijuana.
And Mr. Charles wound up dead, shot dead, admittedly by the Defendant.
Other testimony indicated that at, during, or near the time of the invitation
or suggestion to go to the creek, the Defendant was seen to arm himself with the
weapon and take that weapon with him to obstensibly [sic] smoke the marijuana.
It was the Defendant’s claim that he was groped from behind by Mr. Charles
while urinating, and his immediate reaction was to turn and fire the weapon.
I have some difficulty with that as it relates to an objectively determined
wound to Mr. Charles. In short, Mr. Charles was shot from the back into the back
of his head.
Persons who had been at the premises prior to the killing were still there,
some of them anyway, when the Defendant returned. He was seen to go about
washing clothes, hiding the weapon, and there is some suggestion that he did not
permit them to leave after having indicated what he had done for a period of time,
after which they were released to go their various ways.
***
But this strikes me as being a premeditated, cold-blooded murder. And
this jury has limited what the judge of the law can do by their verdict. But they
have not limited and cannot limit the last aspect of the criminal justice system
when it becomes necessary.
I think deliberation and premeditation may well have begun when the
weapon was removed from the grandmother’s home some two weeks, I believe,
some time anyway, some substantial time prior to the killing. It is, therefore, my
decision to sentence Mr. Wallace as an adult.
As noted above, the trial court sentenced Wallace to two years’ imprisonment for the
felony firearm conviction and 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment for the voluntary manslaughter
conviction, to be served consecutively. Wallace appealed by right and this Court issued a per
curiam, unpublished opinion affirming the convictions but remanding the case to the trial court
-2-
for resentencing. This Court found that the trial court failed to make factual findings regarding
each of the factors in MCL 769.1(3), relying on People v Thenghkam.5 On remand, the trial
court resentenced Wallace to the same terms, two years’ imprisonment for the felony firearm
conviction and ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the voluntary manslaughter conviction,
stating:
I think I iterated everything required by the statute at the time of the
imposition of sentence . . ..
***
It was and is my view that Mr. Wallace committed a premeditated murder.
That he planned it. That he, inferentially at least, removed the weapon from the
home of his grandmother, the murder weapon, two weeks prior to the killing, and
that he announced his intent to kill to friends and acquaintances that very same
day. And he proceeded to effect that.
***
In short, I think it was a cold-blooded murder. And I think that his
patterns of behavior, misbehavior, indicated that he had little or no regard for
authority, that he had little or no regard for other human beings, and that being
placed in a juvenile facility would not alter his activity. I’m not convinced that
incarceration in an adult prison will alter Mr. Wallace’s behavior . . ..
***
The ends of the criminal process are said to be retribution, punishment and
rehabilitation. It’s said to be that. And Mr. Wallace is being punished for killing
someone cold-bloodedly. I thought my sentence was appropriate at the time. I
think so now. I know of nothing further I can or should add to it.
II. Wallace’s Resentencing
A. Standard Of Review
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to sentence a juvenile as an adult for an abuse
of discretion and reviews the trial court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.6
5
People v Thenghkam, 240 Mich App 29; 610 NW2d 571 (2000).
6
Thenghkam, supra at 41-42, overruled in part on other grounds in People v Petty, 469 Mich
108, 665 NW2d 443 (2003).
-3-
B. Independent Findings Of Guilt
Wallace asserts that the trial court erroneously made an independent finding that he was
guilty of murder and then abused its discretion by sentencing him based on that finding. A court
may not make an independent finding of guilt and sentence upon a crime other than that for
which the defendant is being sentenced.7 However, “where there is record support that a greater
offense has been committed by a defendant, it may constitute an aggravating factor to be
considered by the judge at sentencing . . ..”8 Further, a trial court may consider evidence
admitted at trial, and conduct proven by a preponderance of that evidence, in its determination of
a defendant’s sentence.9
Here, the trial court noted evidence supporting its finding that Wallace planned the
killing: that Wallace had stolen the murder weapon some two weeks prior to the shooting, that
Wallace had told friends and/or acquaintances that he was going to kill the victim, that Wallace
went to a secluded area with the victim, and that Wallace shot the victim in the back of the head.
Rather clearly, a preponderance of the evidence showed that Wallace's killing of the victim was
premeditated and deliberate. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s finding that the killing
was premeditated was not clearly erroneous. This premeditation was an aggravating factor
considered by the trial court, as permitted in MCL 769.1(3), in its decision to sentence Wallace
as an adult.
C. The Nature Of The Offense
Wallace asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by relying solely on the nature of
the offense when sentencing him as an adult. This argument is unsupported by the record. The
record indicates that the trial court was aware of Wallace’s previous delinquent behavior as well
as his good behavior and self-improvement while in custody. The trial court did not rely solely
on the nature of the offense. Rather, the trial court simply found, after considering all MCL
769.1(3) factors, that the seriousness of the offense and Wallace’s premeditation outweighed his
positive strides during confinement. The trial court properly gave heavier weight to the
seriousness of the offense.10
D. Findings Of Fact
Wallace asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to make specific
findings of fact on the record as to each factor listed in MCL 769.1(3). According to the
Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in Petty, the trial court is not required to make
7
People v Fleming, 428 Mich 408, 417-418; 410 NW2d 266 (1987); People v Dixon, 217 Mich
App 400, 410; 552 NW2d 663 (1996).
8
Fleming, supra at 418.
9
United States v Watts, 519 US 148, 149; 117 S Ct 633; 136 L Ed 2d 554 (1997); People v
Gahan, 456 Mich 264, 275 n 15; 571 NW2d 503 (1997).
10
Petty, supra at 117-118; MCL 769.1(3).
-4-
specific findings of fact for each factor in statutes like MCL 769.1(3).11 The reasoning of
Thenghkam that Wallace relies on would require such specific findings placed on the record.
However, Petty overruled this aspect of Thenghkam.12 The trial court sentenced Wallace as an
adult because the seriousness of the offense and his premeditation of the killing outweighed the
positive factors considered under MCL 769.1(3). Under Petty, further explanation was not
required.
Because resentencing is not required, it is unnecessary to rule on Wallace’s request that a
different judge sentence him.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
11
Petty, supra at 117-118.
12
Id. at 117.
-5-
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.
