Background
Alonzo Dominic Davis confronted his former supervisor, Deontae Murphy, after seeing him near a gas station. The encounter became physical, and Davis took Murphy’s gun during a struggle, pointed it at Murphy’s head, and discharged it, grazing Murphy’s thumb and shoulder. Murphy fled into the gas station, while Davis attempted to follow him with the gun before placing it in a bystander’s vehicle and waiting for police.
A jury convicted Davis of being a felon in possession of a firearm and felony-firearm but acquitted him of assault with intent to murder, unarmed robbery, and another felony-firearm charge. The trial court sentenced him as a second-offense habitual offender to 30 to 90 months for felon-in-possession, consecutive to two years for felony-firearm. Davis challenged only the felon-in-possession sentence, arguing that the court improperly relied on acquitted conduct and imposed a disproportionate top-of-the-guidelines sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. It held that assessing 25 points under Offense Variable 1 was proper because Davis admitted that the gun discharged during his unlawful possession and the evidence showed it was discharged toward Murphy. That finding did not conflict with the acquittals because a rational jury could have found that Davis fired accidentally and lacked the intent required for assault with intent to murder or unarmed robbery.
The court likewise upheld the 10-point score under Offense Variable 3 because Murphy suffered gunshot wounds requiring medical treatment as a result of Davis’s criminal possession of the gun. It also held that the 30-month minimum sentence was proportionate and reasonable given Davis’s role in initiating and escalating the confrontation, taking the gun, pointing it at Murphy, and following Murphy while armed.
The court nevertheless remanded for the ministerial correction of Davis’s presentence investigation report. The report must identify Davis as a second-offense habitual offender, reduce OV 12 to zero and the total OV score to 45, reflect 204 days of jail credit, and incorporate other language changes accepted at sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court may consider conduct overlapping with acquitted charges when the conduct was not practically disputed and is consistent with a rational jury’s acquittal.
- Davis’s acquittals did not establish that he lacked all criminal responsibility for the gun’s discharge; they could instead reflect reasonable doubt about his intent.
- A trial court must ensure that an amended presentence report accurately incorporates corrections accepted at sentencing because the report can affect prison classification and parole.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates Michigan’s rational-jury approach to acquitted conduct: an acquittal prevents sentencing courts from treating a defendant as having committed the acquitted offense, but it does not necessarily bar consideration of overlapping facts that remain compatible with the verdict.
It also underscores that correcting a presentence report is mandatory even when the inaccuracies did not affect the sentence. Because the report follows a defendant into prison, accepted corrections must appear in the operative document used by correctional and parole authorities.