Background
Myke Edward-Charles Hutchinson pleaded guilty to two counts of delivering methamphetamine arising from sales to a confidential informant in February and March 2024. In exchange, the prosecution withdrew habitual-offender notices and dismissed two unrelated cases. The parties also reached a Killebrew agreement contemplating concurrent 36-month minimum sentences, based on the guidelines calculation then anticipated.
Sentencing was delayed twice. Hutchinson initially failed to complete the presentence process, preventing preparation of the required presentence investigation report. After the trial court adjourned sentencing and ordered him to complete an interview, Hutchinson failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing. The court ultimately assessed 10 points under Offense Variable 19 for interference with the administration of justice, raising the minimum guidelines range to 51 to 85 months, and imposed concurrent sentences of 51 to 240 months.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the 10-point OV 19 score under MCL 777.49(c). Hutchinson’s conduct twice prevented sentencing from proceeding as scheduled and delayed imposition of sentence by nearly three months. That conduct went beyond merely declining to assist the sentencing process and instead hampered the court’s administration of judgment.
The court also upheld the finding that Hutchinson intentionally missed the second sentencing hearing. He was present when the date was announced and later told a correctional officer, “That’s the last time I’m showing up for court.” His subsequent incarceration did not excuse the absence because the evidence showed that he was booked approximately 10 hours after the scheduled hearing. The court rejected his self-incrimination argument because the record did not show that he invoked the privilege during the presentence process, and the privilege did not authorize him to disregard an order to schedule and attend an interview.
Key Takeaways
- Post-offense conduct may support an OV 19 score when it hampers, hinders, or obstructs the judicial process.
- Failing to complete a required presentence process and intentionally missing sentencing can constitute interference with the administration of justice.
- A defendant’s right against self-incrimination does not permit disregarding a court order to schedule and appear for a presentence interview.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that misconduct while awaiting sentencing may affect a defendant’s guidelines score when it actually delays or obstructs the court’s ability to impose judgment. The relevant inquiry is not simply whether the defendant failed to cooperate, but whether the conduct crossed the line into interference with the sentencing process.
The opinion also illustrates how statements reflecting an intent not to return to court may support an inference that a later failure to appear was deliberate, even when the defendant offers an alternative explanation.