People of Michigan v. Robert Anthony Sonderman ( 2024 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
October 11, 2024
Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:00 PM
v No. 366738
Leelanau Circuit Court
ROBERT ANTHONY SONDERMAN, LC No. 2022-002082-FH
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: YATES, P.J., and CAVANAGH and MARIANI, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted1 his sentences for plea-based convictions of conducting
a criminal enterprise, MCL 750.159i(1), and maintaining a drug house, MCL 333.7405(1)(d). The
trial court sentenced defendant to 72 to 240 months’ imprisonment for conducting a criminal
enterprise and 6 to 24 months’ imprisonment for maintaining a drug house. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of defendant’s involvement in a scheme to deliver methamphetamine.
Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at defendant’s residence after the United
States Postal Inspector intercepted a package that was addressed to defendant and contained
methamphetamine. While the officers were executing the search warrant, they observed defendant
drive by the residence without stopping. Days later, defendant was charged and a warrant was
issued for his arrest. Through defendant’s cell phone activity, he was located in Illinois and
extradited to Michigan.
Defendant pleaded guilty to conducting a criminal enterprise and maintaining a drug house.
At sentencing, defendant argued that he was erroneously scored 10 points for offense variable
1
People v Sonderman, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 23, 2023
(Docket No. 366738).
-1-
(OV) 19 on the basis that he interfered with the administration of justice. The trial court disagreed
and determined that the score was appropriate. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
We review for clear error a trial court’s factual determinations under the sentencing
guidelines, which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. People v Ziegler, 343
Mich App 406, 410; 997 NW2d 493 (2022). Clear error exists when we are left with a definite
and firm conviction that an error has occurred. People v Caddell, 332 Mich App 27, 41; 955
NW2d 488 (2020). Whether the facts, as found, support the particular score assessed is a question
of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Ziegler, 343 Mich App at 411.
Under MCL 777.49, points are properly assessed for OV 19 on the basis of a “threat to the
security of a penal institution or court or interference with the administration of justice or the
rendering of emergency services.” MCL 777.49(b) directs sentencing courts to score 15 points if
an offender used force or the threat of force against another person or the person’s property that
interfered with, attempted to interfere with, or resulted in the interference with the administration
of justice or the rendering of emergency services. MCL 777.49(c) instructs sentencing courts to
score ten points for OV 19 if “[t]he offender otherwise interfered with or attempted to interfere
with the administration of justice, or directly or indirectly violated a personal protection order.”
The question presented is whether defendant interfered with the administration of justice when he
drove by his residence without stopping while the police were searching the residence and
thereafter fled to Illinois.
“[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘interfere with the administration of justice’ for
purposes of OV 19 is to oppose so as to hamper, hinder, or obstruct the act or process of
administering judgment of individuals or causes by judicial process.” People v Hershey, 303 Mich
App 330, 343; 844 NW2d 127 (2013). Although the phrase “interfered with or attempted to
interfere with the administration of justice” in MCL 777.49(c) can include acts that constitute
obstruction of justice, the phrase is not limited to acts that constitute obstruction of justice. People
v Barbee, 470 Mich 283, 286; 681 NW2d 348 (2004). “OV 19 is generally scored for conduct that
constitutes an attempt to avoid being caught and held accountable for the sentencing offense.”
People v Sours, 315 Mich App 346, 349; 890 NW2d 401 (2016).
Defendant argues that ten points were erroneously scored for OV 19 because he had no
duty to return to his residence and assist the officers in executing the search warrant or to remain
in the state of Michigan thereafter. Relying on People v Deweerd, 511 Mich 979, 980 (2023),
defendant contends that his acts amounted to a failure to assist in or facilitate the investigation. In
Deweerd, 511 Mich at 980-982, the Court determined that the trial court erroneously scored ten
points under OV 19 because the defendant’s statements to the police following a search constituted
the mere denial of culpability. Defendant’s reliance on Deweerd is misplaced because his conduct
amounted to more than the mere failure to assist in the investigation. Rather, defendant fled the
state after he drove by his residence and realized that law enforcement officers were searching the
residence. The purpose of defendant’s flight to Illinois was “to avoid being caught and held
accountable” for his conduct. See Sours, 315 Mich App at 349. Further, defendant’s actions
constituted an attempt to “prevent law enforcement from being able to arrest” him. See Deweerd,
511 Mich at 980; see also People v Smith, 318 Mich App 281, 286; 897 NW2d 743 (2016) (“Hiding
-2-
from the police constituted an interference with the administration of justice because it was done
for the purpose of hindering or hampering the police investigation.”) Accordingly, the trial court
properly scored ten points under OV 19.
III. CONCLUSION
Because the trial court did not err by scoring ten points under OV 19 on the basis that
defendant’s actions constituted interference with the administration of justice, defendant is not
entitled to resentencing.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher P. Yates
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Philip P. Mariani
-3-