Double jeopardy; AWIGBH & second-offense aggravated domestic violence; No-contest plea; Separate acts; Abstract-legal-elements test; MCL 750.84(3); Retroactivity; Sentencing; OV 1; MCL 777.31(1)(d); OV 4; MCL 777.34(1)(a); OV 7; MCL 777.37(1)(a); OV 8; MCL 777.38(1)(a); OV 12; MCL 777.42(1)(d)

The court held that defendant’s convictions for AWIGBH and second-offense aggravated domestic violence did not violate double-jeopardy protections, MCL 750.84(3) did not apply retroactively, and the challenged OV scores were proper. He pled no contest to the offenses following a violent assault on his wife. On appeal, defendant argued that the prosecution improperly divided a single domestic-violence incident into two crimes. The court disagreed, finding record evidence of separate assaults. Witnesses saw defendant first punch the victim in the face and knock out a tooth, conduct supporting aggravated domestic violence. He then dragged her away and, “with a new intent,” continued assaulting her, including with a shoe, supporting AWIGBH. Even assuming a single act, there was no double-jeopardy violation. AWIGBH required an intent to inflict great bodily harm that aggravated domestic violence did not, while aggravated domestic violence required a serious injury and domestic relationship that AWIGBH did not. “Because each offense requires an element that the other does not, defendant’s conviction did not violate double-jeopardy protections.” The court further held that MCL 750.84(3), which expressly permits punishment for other offenses arising from the same conduct, did not apply to these pre-amendment offenses. Because the provision “affects an individual’s substantial rights[,] [it] is not remedial, and courts should not apply it retroactively.” As to sentencing, 10 points for OV 1 were supported because defendant used a shoe as a weapon. Ten points for OV 4 were proper given evidence that the victim suffered nightmares, fear, social difficulties, and underwent counseling “for years.” The 50-point OV 7 score was supported by excessive brutality where defendant “beat the victim well beyond what was necessary to support the conviction.” Fifteen points for OV 8 were proper because he dragged her away from people who could intervene and into greater danger. Finally, five points for OV 12 were warranted because he contemporaneously committed unlawful imprisonment by restraining the victim to facilitate the AWIGBH. Affirmed.