Background
Raymond Vern MacLeod was involved in a road-rage incident in which he allegedly drove extremely close to another vehicle, retrieved and racked a handgun, and later fired two shots as the other driver fled in the opposite direction. Police found a firearm in MacLeod’s vehicle with two rounds missing from its magazine.
MacLeod pleaded guilty to felon-in-possession of a firearm and felony-firearm. The trial court assessed 25 points under offense variable 1, finding that he had discharged the firearm at or toward a person. That score produced a minimum-guidelines range of 19 to 47 months, and the court imposed consecutive terms of 24 to 90 months for felon-in-possession and two years for felony-firearm.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court clearly erred by scoring offense variable 1 at 25 points. Although the evidence supported a finding that MacLeod fired the weapon, nothing in the record established the direction in which he fired. The victim did not report that the gun was aimed or fired toward him, and there was no physical evidence, such as bullet holes in his vehicle, supporting that conclusion.
The panel explained that the road-rage context and MacLeod’s anger toward the victim did not, without more, permit a reasonable inference that he fired toward the victim. Because the record showed only that MacLeod displayed the firearm by raising and racking it, offense variable 1 should have been scored at five points. That correction changed the applicable guidelines range, entitling MacLeod to resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence that a defendant discharged a firearm does not by itself establish that it was discharged at or toward a person.
- A sentencing court may draw reasonable inferences from the record, but it may not base an offense-variable score on speculation.
- Because reducing the offense-variable score from 25 points to five points changed the guidelines range, resentencing was required.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that each factual requirement supporting a sentencing enhancement must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Even compelling circumstantial facts—such as a road-rage confrontation, two heard gunshots, and two missing rounds—cannot establish the direction of fire without evidence supporting that specific inference.
The ruling also illustrates the practical consequence of a guidelines-scoring error: when correcting the error changes the applicable range, the defendant is entitled to be resentenced under the properly calculated range.