People of Michigan v. Todd Louis Ison

Michigan Court of Appeals

People of Michigan v. Todd Louis Ison

DecidedFebruary 25, 2020

Docket343530

StatusUnpublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Todd Louis Ison (People of Michigan v. Todd Louis Ison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of Michigan v. Todd Louis Ison, (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED February 25, 2020 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 343530 Wayne Circuit Court TODD LOUIS ISON, LC No. 17-006585-01-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: LETICA, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and BOONSTRA, JJ.

LETICA, P.J., (concurring).

Sans the paragraph discussing People v Shavers, 448 Mich 389, 393; 531 NW2d 165 (1995), People v Compagnari, 233 Mich App 233, 236; 590 NW2d 302 (1998), and People v Coulter (After Remand), 305 Mich App 453, 456; 517 NW2d 827 (1994), I agree that defendant’s sentence is proportionate and does not run afoul of People v Beck, 504 Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2019), cert pending. In response to the Beck dissent, which cited to Coulter (After Remand), the majority stated: [T]o the extent the distinction the dissent wants to draw between sentencing a defendant more harshly based on the conclusion that the defendant committed an offense of which he was acquitted and sentencing a defendant “while considering conduct that supported the acquitted charge” is a meaningful one (and we are not convinced it is), this case plainly involves the former. [Beck, 504 Mich at ___, slip op at 21, n 24.]

As explained by the majority here, the sentencing court did not rely on acquitted conduct; instead, it relied upon the victim’s real-time 911 call before imposing an out-of-guidelines sentence because of defendant’s perjurious trial testimony and his patently false statement in the presentence investigation report. People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 324; 532 NW2d 508 (1995) (“In imposing sentence, a trial court may consider a defendant’s own perjury where there is a rational basis in the

-1- record for concluding that the defendant willfully made a flagrantly false statement on a material issue.”).

/s/ Anica Letica

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED February 25, 2020 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 343530 Wayne Circuit Court TODD LOUIS ISON, LC No. 17-006585-01-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: LETICA, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and BOONSTRA, JJ.

LETICA, P.J., (concurring).

Sans the paragraph discussing People v Shavers, 448 Mich 389, 393; 531 NW2d 165 (1995), People v Compagnari, 233 Mich App 233, 236; 590 NW2d 302 (1998), and People v Coulter (After Remand), 305 Mich App 453, 456; 517 NW2d 827 (1994), I agree that defendant’s sentence is proportionate and does not run afoul of People v Beck, 504 Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2019), cert pending. In response to the Beck dissent, which cited to Coulter (After Remand), the majority stated: [T]o the extent the distinction the dissent wants to draw between sentencing a defendant more harshly based on the conclusion that the defendant committed an offense of which he was acquitted and sentencing a defendant “while considering conduct that supported the acquitted charge” is a meaningful one (and we are not convinced it is), this case plainly involves the former. [Beck, 504 Mich at ___, slip op at 21, n 24.]

As explained by the majority here, the sentencing court did not rely on acquitted conduct; instead, it relied upon the victim’s real-time 911 call before imposing an out-of-guidelines sentence because of defendant’s perjurious trial testimony and his patently false statement in the presentence investigation report. People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 324; 532 NW2d 508 (1995) (“In imposing sentence, a trial court may consider a defendant’s own perjury where there is a rational basis in the

-1- record for concluding that the defendant willfully made a flagrantly false statement on a material issue.”).

/s/ Anica Letica

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People of Michigan v. Todd Louis Ison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-todd-louis-ison-michctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack