Background
Annette Perkins was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder, malicious destruction of personal property, and domestic violence. The charges arose after Perkins drove her car off the roadway and struck a former dating partner, pinning him against his son’s vehicle and damaging that vehicle. The victim sustained serious injuries.
Perkins initially was found incompetent to stand trial and received treatment at a psychiatric hospital. After the Center for Forensic Psychiatry reevaluated her and found her competent, the trial court likewise found her competent and proceeded to trial. She received a prison term of 36 to 120 months for the assault conviction and concurrent 93-day terms for the other convictions.
On appeal, Perkins challenged the scoring of a sentencing variable and the proportionality of her assault sentence. She also raised claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary sufficiency, police and prosecutorial misconduct, unpreserved evidence, and other alleged procedural errors.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed in a per curiam opinion. It held that a preponderance of the evidence supported assessing 10 points under offense variable 4 for serious psychological injury. The victim’s emotional testimony and statements about the assault’s lasting effects, together with his son’s reported emotional devastation, supported the score even though neither sought psychological treatment.
The court also held that Perkins’s 36-month minimum sentence, within the recommended range of 19 to 38 months, was presumptively proportionate. Her assaultive misdemeanor history, continued efforts to contact the victim despite a court order, misconduct in custody, lack of remorse, and continuing danger to the victim supported the sentence. Her ineffective-assistance claims failed because the challenged conduct was not prejudicial, lacked a factual predicate, or could reasonably reflect trial strategy.
Finally, the court found sufficient evidence for all three convictions. Testimony, photographs, tire tracks, the victim’s injuries, the parties’ former dating relationship, and damage to the son’s vehicle permitted a rational jury to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Perkins’s remaining misconduct and procedural claims were unsupported, contradicted by the record, or failed to establish plain error affecting substantial rights.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence of lasting emotional harm may support scoring OV 4 even when a victim has not obtained professional treatment.
- A defendant challenging a within-guidelines sentence must identify unusual circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption of proportionality.
- Ineffective-assistance and plain-error claims require factual support; speculation and assertions contradicted by the record are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the record evidence Michigan courts may use to infer serious psychological injury for OV 4, including testimony, victim-impact information, and reasonable inferences from the offense’s effects. It also reinforces the substantial burden defendants face when attacking a within-guidelines sentence as disproportionate.
For appellate practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of preserving sentencing objections and developing a factual record for ineffective-assistance and evidence-preservation claims. Unsupported allegations in a self-represented brief do not establish appellate error.