Automated Summary
Key Facts
Defendant Keith Darnell Hollimon was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) involving his great-niece, who was between ages 11 and 13 during the abuse between 2021 and 2023. The final incident on April 8, 2023, was captured on the victim's grandmother's security camera, leading to police reporting. Hollimon, a fourth-offense habitual offender, received concurrent 25- to 50-year sentences. The prosecution's arguments regarding witness credibility and the habitual offender sentencing requirements were upheld on appeal.
Issues
- Whether the prosecutor's comments during closing argument constituted misconduct that denied the defendant a fair trial.
- Whether errors in scoring offense variables (OVs) altered the appropriate guidelines range and required resentencing.
Holdings
- The court held that any errors in scoring offense variables (OVs) were harmless. The mandatory minimum sentences under the habitual offender statute and the CSC-I conviction required a 25-year minimum, leaving no discretion for a lower sentence. Resentencing is not warranted.
- The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences, finding no plain error in the prosecutor's closing argument. The prosecution's arguments were based on evidence and permissible credibility assessments, and the defense's claim of prosecutorial misconduct was denied.
Remedies
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and the sentences of 25 to 50 years' imprisonment. No relief was granted on appeal, as the convictions and sentences were upheld in full.
Legal Principles
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, finding no prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument. It held that the prosecutor's credibility arguments were permissible as they responded to the defense theory of fabrication. Additionally, the court determined that any error in scoring offense variables was harmless due to mandatory minimum sentencing requirements under MCL 750.520b(2)(b) and the habitual offender statute (MCL 769.12), which required a 25-year minimum sentence regardless of offense variable scores.
Precedent Name
- People v Carines
- People v Unger
- People v Jackson (On Reconsideration)
- People v Anderson
- People v Wisniewski
- People v Fink
- People v Bahoda
- People v Cooper
- People v Isrow
- People v Thomas
- People v Dobek
- People v Francisco
- People v Meissner
Cited Statute
- Criminal Sexual Conduct Act
- Home Invasion Act
- Habitual Offender Act
Judge Name
- O'BRIEN
- ACKERMAN
- K. F. Kelly
Passage Text
- Because the trial court lacked discretion to impose a lower minimum sentence, any error in scoring the OVs would be harmless. See MCL 769.34(2)(a). Even if the guidelines range had changed, the court could not have imposed a lesser sentence.
- Because defendant was a fourth-offense habitual offender with a prior conviction of first-degree home invasion under MCL 750.110a—a listed prior felony—the trial court was required to impose a minimum sentence of 25 years for each CSC-I conviction.
- The prosecutor did not claim special insight into the victim's or defendant's credibility. Rather, he argued that the victim and other prosecution witnesses did not 'have a special interest in the outcome of this case, other than the fact that they are just here and they've been told to tell the truth.' He further contended that the victim was motivated to tell the truth to protect herself, while defendant, facing serious consequences, had an incentive to lie.