The number & location of deputies in the courtroom; Due process right to the presumption of innocence; Holbrook v Flynn; Effect of the jury instructions; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 9; MCL 777.39(1)(c); Actions taken while fleeing the site of an armed robbery

Rejecting defendant’s claim that the number and location of deputies in the courtroom denied him a fair trial and his right to due process, and upholding the 10-point score for OV 9, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences. He was convicted of armed robbery and third-degree fleeing and eluding. He was sentenced to 13-1/2 to 20 years for armed robbery and 1 to 5 years for fleeing and eluding. He argued “that assigning a total of five deputies to the courtroom, with two within 10 feet of the defense table, ‘sen[t] the wrong message to the jury.’” The court noted the record showed that 2 “deputies were 7 to 10 feet from the defense table, but” nothing in the record established “that the presence of courtroom security was unusually alarming or troublesome.” Rather, the record showed that “courthouse security policy required five deputies in the courtroom” given that two defendants were on trial. In addition, “the presence of a weapon in evidence and defendant’s conduct in jail called for additional levels of security; and placing the deputies in alternative seating would have led to the appearance that they were focused on defendant instead of equally concerned with defendant and” his codefendant. In light of these facts, the court could not “conclude that the deputies’ placement in the courtroom was inherently prejudicial.” Defendant also failed to show actual prejudice, as he offered no basis for finding “that the jurors actually were influenced by the number and location of deputies in the courtroom.” As to OV 9, the court noted that his actions “while fleeing the jewelry counter” had to be considered in determining whether he “put two to nine victims in danger during the armed robbery.” It held that he put at least two people in danger. He threatened a store employee “and approached her while brandishing a hatchet over his head and then ran while continuing to hold the hatchet in front of him, thereby forcing [another store employee] to step out of the way to avoid a collision."