Judge DOUBLES Defendant's Sentence After Courtroom Attitude Goes Wrong

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Our next file is going to be People in the State of Michigan versus Max Allen. We are here today for sentencing on a single offense of assault, resist, obstructed police officer. Let's turn over to Allen Kutian, Ms. Dahl. [00:00:18] Speaker 2: Your Honor, I ask the court to follow the recommendation. I don't believe probation is appropriate for this defendant in his history on probation. He was on probation when his defense occurred. He is still pending sentencing and not probation violation. So I don't believe he's a good candidate for probation in this case. I do believe consequences should be given in 180 days as appropriate for his conduct and his past. Thank you. [00:00:46] Speaker 3: I was kind of taken aback, as was Mr. Allen, when we saw that the recommendation was for 180-day jail sentence. I realized that in a manner of speaking, I suppose, his past conduct is weighed somewhat heavily in this as well. Because really, honestly, we focused on the events of the night in question. Yes, it was a charge of R&O. That's what he pled to. There was nothing physical. There was nothing dangerous to the officers. I can't think of a better word than simply his refusal to come out to allow them to arrest him on the existing warrant for the probation violation in Grant Trevor's County. I think in the grand scheme of things, when we look at R&O, look at all the possibilities within that same statute. There was nothing dangerous that occurred to these peace officers who were obviously just doing their job. He simply didn't come out of the dwelling when they asked him to. So when you look at the guideline in 0-17, I guess my initial reaction should be, there's not much there and he's already served a significant amount of jail time pursuant to this matter. For some reason, I believe there's an overemphasis here, trying to make this situation, I could be accused of minimizing it, but I don't think so. I think I'm faithfully citing the content of the narrative, into something more dangerous and more substantial than it really is or ought to be. Was it the way we would have him conduct? No, of course not. Of course there should be a sanction. But 180 days seems like a very strident recommendation under those same facts and circumstances when you boil it all down. We understand he doesn't avail himself of the presumption of no jail here, perhaps, due to the fact, maybe plain and simple, that he was on probation at the time this occurred. That alone, I believe, would provide sufficient good cause for the court to oppose the jail sentence. And I would say the court, in reality, probably should, but the jail sentence should be time served and no more. Thank you. [00:03:32] Speaker 1: No? [00:03:35] Speaker 2: I think I'm going back and forth today, trying to mix it up. [00:03:40] Speaker 1: Thank you. Sorry about that. Mr. Allen, you have the right to make statement if you choose. Anything you wish to say? [00:03:45] Speaker 4: I think my attorney covered it greatly. There was no violence. There was no rude actions. No disrespectful terms said. It was a simple refusal of exiting the building. Thank you, Brian. [00:04:01] Speaker 1: Well, there might be a little bit of an oversimplification, right? So, the officers were sitting out there watching the Buckley Bar area, which is a common intersection. People would be traveling between Wexford and Grand Traverse County, plus the Buckley Bar and leaving there. You never know what's going to happen. But, you left the building, got into the vehicle. No. Okay. Well, I'm going to say right now. It says in here, which is uncontested, and I therefore make a finding of the preponderance of the evidence. It says, Max then went into the building, came out, got into the F-250, started it. Then, he got out of the truck and approached the patrol car. When Max was in the middle of the alley, both deputies got out of the patrol car and started speaking with Max while walking towards him. Deputies informed Max that he had a warrant for his arrest, and that is when he turned and began to run back towards the building. Deputies began to run towards Max and gave him loud verbal commands that they were police and he needed to stop. Max refused to stop, ran into the building, closed the doors behind him. He needed to exit the business and come out with them due to his warrant, but Max refused. He stated he did not have a warrant, and he was not going with them. Deputy Ramirez informed Max that he didn't exit the building and follow their commands. He could get charged with resisting and obstructing him. Max stated he didn't care. Deputies again informed Max to exit, it says vehicle, I think, that meant building, and he refused. And that that Ford F-50, that 250 he was driving, had improper plates, I'm sorry, improper registration plates because it belonged to another vehicle. So, the defendant, who, back in 2024, had been on bond for, actually in 2024, he had a resisting arrest, it was reduced to a disturbing the peace up in Grand Traverse County. Then, about five months later, he picked up a driver and license suspended. Now, not a big crime, according to most people, but that means that this defendant knows he's not supposed to drive a car. By the way, it's a driving license suspended second, and yet, he doesn't care because he'll do what he wants when he thinks he can get away with it. And then, shortly after that, actually, uh, and he's driving without insurance. He picks up the charges in Grand Traverse County, which include operating while intoxicated, and another assault-resist destructive police officer, an operator in a vehicle without registration and security. Now, he pleads to an operator while intoxicated, and it doesn't take him long to start violating his probation period, which is probably why they gave him three years of probation, because of his prior conduct. Sure enough, he went back to the old ways and had some probation violations. Well, also here, I will note that, while that last case, the case I just mentioned, was pending, he violated bond by picking up another driver and license suspended, and it was reduced. But, I'll note that there was a, without security and insurance, and registration. So, once again, knowing what he's not supposed to do, he does not care, which I'm going to take that as a quote from what he told the officers through the door of the business. He does not care for follow authority. Now, that case was resolved, and it looks like while he was still on probation, he then picks up this case. And, I'm going to highlight, the defendant drove a vehicle that was unlawfully registered to another vehicle. It had plates on it, so he could go to the bar, and then when he saw the cops, he ran inside. So, if you don't like what I'm saying, I'm going to tell you, this is what's in the report, and you did not challenge it. And, you're shifting around, and your grumpiness underneath your voice only hurts you, and I'm going to make sure it does. And, what I was going to give you, is now going to go up. No, this was not you just resisting, leaving a building. Whoever you told that to is wrong. And, counsel can look and give me eyes. This report says you will do what you want to do when you think you can get away with it. You've got prior probation violations back in 2016 with your operating wall intoxicated. You had other problems here in 2016, because when you were on bond for one, drinking and driving, you picked up the next one. And, you had multiple bond violations, multiple probation violations. You are not a good candidate for probation, according to this court. And, you had prior assault resistant destructive police officers, if you'd only had one, maybe. But, you keep doing the same thing over and over again. Other driver licenses suspended. No. The answer is, is there are sufficient reasonable grounds based upon your bond violence. And, you violated bond here, because you didn't go to community corrections. When I told you to go, we told you to go to community corrections for testing. If you don't follow authority, 32 years of age, you violate bond, you violate probation. You ignore the rules. You know you're not supposed to drive, but you keep driving. You put on fake plates on the cars whenever you think you can get away with it. So, the answer is, is you are not a good candidate for probation. And, the court will not place you on probation. And, your attitude here today, demonstrates that my interpretation from this report, of what you're like, is spot on. So, if there's ever an appeal, I really hope, I wish I could have a video added to the, oh right, but there isn't. But, if anybody ever wishes to call the court and talk about it, please do so. The court hereby sentences the defendant to a jail term of 365 days, court thinks the defendant needs to have some more deterrence. And, this court thinks he needs to learn some authority and respect. And, this court thinks that he keeps getting it light and easy, and this court is no longer going to allow that to happen. I find that that sentence is reasonable and purportable. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.