If you or a family member were acquitted of a charge but believe the judge still used that allegation to increase a Michigan sentence, the sentencing record deserves careful review. The key question is what conduct the judge actually found and whether that finding conflicted with the acquittal.
Michigan law limits sentencing based on acquitted conduct. In People v Beck, 504 Mich 605 (2019), the Michigan Supreme Court barred judges from increasing punishment by finding that a defendant committed conduct of which the jury acquitted him. Applying that rule can be difficult when the judge relies on related conduct underlying other convictions.
The published October 9, 2026 opinion in People v Motten, Court of Appeals No. 363044, illustrates the problem. The court upheld 100 points for Offense Variable 3 after a first-degree murder acquittal. It treated the finding that a death resulted from the defendant’s other crimes as different from finding him guilty of the acquitted murder.
For a person considering a Michigan criminal sentence appeal, the practical question is precise: what conduct did the sentencing judge actually find, and did that finding contradict the acquittal?
What happened in Motten?
A jury acquitted William Motten, Jr. of first-degree murder. A later trial resulted in convictions for two assaults with intent to murder involving separate victims, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony-firearm. Another person died during the shooting episode.
At sentencing, the judge assessed 100 points for OV 3 because a death resulted from criminal conduct and homicide was not the sentencing offense. According to the opinion, those points increased the recommended minimum-sentence range from 126–210 months to 171–285 months. The court imposed minimum terms of 285 months for the assault convictions.
Motten later sought resentencing through a successive motion for relief from judgment. He argued that the scoring violated Beck. The October 9 opinion affirmed the denial of that motion after a Michigan Supreme Court remand.
What Beck prohibits
Beck protects the presumption of innocence following an acquittal. A sentencing judge cannot use the lower preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to find that a defendant engaged in acquitted conduct and then use that finding to increase the sentence.
The rule concerns the substance of the sentencing finding. A court’s statement that it is respecting the verdict does not answer the question by itself. The reasons the judge gave, the facts used to score the guidelines, and the conduct the jury rejected all require examination.
Why the Court of Appeals upheld 100 points for OV 3
MCL 777.33(2)(b) directs courts to assess 100 points when death results from a crime and homicide is not the sentencing offense. Applying People v Laidler, 491 Mich 339 (2012), the Motten panel examined factual causation: would the death have occurred but for the defendant’s criminal conduct?
The panel distinguished two findings. One would be that Motten committed an intentional, premeditated murder. The other would be that the conduct underlying his assault convictions was a factual cause of the death. The court concluded that the first-degree murder acquittal did not necessarily decide the second question.
The panel also found support for causation in the available record, including the sentencing judge’s explanation and the circumstances of the shooting. It therefore held that the scoring did not depend on acquitted conduct and that Beck did not require relief in this case.
The difficult issue: what finding did the judge actually make?
The defense concern is substantial. A court cannot avoid Beck simply by calling a rejected homicide allegation “causation.” The important distinction is between a finding supported by the convicted conduct and a finding that effectively restores conduct the jury rejected.
Our analysis: an appellate argument should test that distinction against the actual trial and sentencing records. The fact that a death occurred during the same episode does not, standing alone, explain which criminal act caused it. The argument should identify the claimed causal link, the evidence supporting it, and the relationship between that link and the acquittal. Motten accepted the link on its record; a different record may present a different issue.
The opinion acknowledged that portions of the old record were unavailable. That makes record preservation especially important. The verdict alone may not show what factual dispute the jury resolved. Instructions, testimony, counsel’s arguments, and the judge’s sentencing explanation can reveal why the acquittal and the later finding do—or do not—conflict.
What to examine before raising an acquitted-conduct claim
- The exact verdict. Identify each acquitted charge, each conviction, any lesser offense, and the relevant jury instructions.
- The sentencing finding. Identify the specific conduct the judge found, rather than relying only on the offense label.
- The scoring calculation. Compare the guidelines range with and without the challenged points and explain how the finding affected the sentence.
- The supporting evidence. Check the sentencing transcript, presentence report, trial testimony, exhibits, and written objections.
- The procedural route. Determine whether the case remains on direct review or requires post-conviction relief, and address preservation and any applicable procedural restrictions.
These are separate questions. A constitutional argument can fail if it never identifies the disputed finding. A scoring argument can fail if it assumes that every fact connected to an acquitted charge is automatically excluded.
Did Motten decide whether Beck applies retroactively?
No. The October 9 opinion did not resolve that question. The panel explained that the Supreme Court had vacated its earlier nonretroactivity opinion. On remand, it concluded that Beck did not apply to the sentencing findings in this case, regardless of retroactivity. It therefore did not revisit retroactivity.
Footnote 3 also identified the Supreme Court’s consideration of retroactivity in People v Bentley, No. 169976. That statement describes the posture reported in the October 9 opinion; later orders must be checked before relying on it in a pending case.
For older convictions, showing a possible Beck violation is only part of the analysis. A Michigan motion for relief from judgment also requires attention to the governing court rules, prior proceedings, and restrictions on successive motions. The 6.500 filing guide explains that procedural framework.
What this means for a Michigan sentencing appeal
Motten is a reason to develop the record carefully, not to abandon acquitted-conduct claims or assume they automatically succeed. The strongest analysis connects the verdict to the exact finding that increased the punishment and explains why that finding was constitutionally or legally improper.
To discuss possible representation, be ready to identify the court, case number, sentencing date, and any prior appeals or post-conviction motions. Evaluating an acquitted-conduct claim requires examining the verdict, sentencing transcript, presentence report, and guidelines scoring. Contact Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC to discuss representation in a Michigan criminal appeal or post-conviction proceeding. Check the applicable appeal deadlines promptly and preserve the complete record.
Case note based on the published October 9, 2026 opinion in People v Motten, No. 363044, especially pages 2–5 and footnote 3. Other authorities discussed: People v Beck, 504 Mich 605 (2019); People v Laidler, 491 Mich 339 (2012); MCL 777.33. This article provides general information and does not determine the available remedy in an individual case.
