Michigan Court of Appeals Vacates Sentences in OWI‑3rd and Prisoner‑in‑Possession Case

Michigan Preliminary Exams

Convictions Upheld, But Panel Finds Sentences “Disproportionate” and Lacking Adequate Explanation

Cheboygan Circuit Court
LC No. 20-006006-FH

Summary

A divided Michigan Court of Appeals panel upheld the convictions of a Cheboygan man for Operating While Intoxicated – Third Offense and Prisoner in Possession of a Weapon, but vacated both sentences after finding they were grossly disproportionate to the underlying conduct. The majority held that the trial court failed to justify a 25‑year minimum sentence for a nonviolent OWI‑3rd offense and imposed a within‑guidelines sentence for the weapon charge without properly considering mitigating factors. The case has been remanded for resentencing.

Background

The consolidated appeals in People v. Brcic involved two separate convictions:

• A 2020 OWI‑3rd offense, for which the defendant, Steven Russell Brcic, received a 25 to 50‑year sentence.

• A prisoner‑in‑possession of a weapon (PPW) conviction arising while Brcic awaited trial in county jail.

The sentencing judge justified the extreme upward departure by comparing Brcic’s repeated drunk‑driving behavior to that of habitual violent offenders, asserting that such offenders receive 25‑year minimums. The Court of Appeals majority rejected that analogy, noting that Michigan law distinguishes between risk‑creating conduct and actual violence.

On July 14, 2020, Officer Noah Morse responded to a larceny call at a Walmart in Cheboygan County. A store employee asked him to check on Steven Russell Brcic, who appeared intoxicated and unsteady near the bottle return area. Morse found Brcic sitting in the driver’s seat of a Chevrolet Tahoe with an open beer can. After being told not to drive, Brcic agreed to wait for a ride — but surveillance footage soon showed he drove away.

Shortly afterward, a nearby resident heard a crash. Police found the Tahoe flipped on its side near a tree, with no one inside. Three minors reported seeing the same man — later identified as Brcic — driving recklessly moments before the crash, swerving toward them and yelling out the window. Witnesses and an EMT saw a man matching his description limping toward a river.

When officers approached, Brcic ignored commands, walked into the river, and swam backstroke for more than 15 minutes while officers followed along the shore. He eventually climbed onto a police boat and was taken for medical evaluation. A hospital blood draw showed a 0.2266 BAC. He was arrested and charged with OWI‑3rd, resisting/obstructing, driving with a suspended license, failure to report an accident, and open container violations, all enhanced as a fourth‑offense habitual offender.

While jailed awaiting trial, Brcic received a disposable razor under jail policy. Officers later found him in his cell bleeding heavily from self‑inflicted injuries. The razor blade had been removed from its housing, and the blade was recovered from the toilet. He was charged with Prisoner in Possession of a Weapon (PPW) as a habitual offender. A jury convicted him, and he received a 58‑month to 25‑year sentence — the top of the guideline range.

Separately, Brcic challenged a jailhouse blood draw via suppression motion. The trial court granted suppression, and the prosecution appealed. During the interlocutory appeal, Brcic remained incarcerated. After the Michigan Department of Corrections issued a 180‑day speedy‑trial notice, trial was scheduled for March 2023. Brcic moved to dismiss for speedy‑trial violations, but the court denied the motion, citing the appellate stay and COVID‑19‑related delays.

At trial in March 2023, a jury convicted him of OWI‑3rd and all related charges. The sentencing guidelines recommended 19–76 months, but the trial court imposed a 25‑ to 50‑year sentence, citing his extensive drunk‑driving history, danger to the community, and analogy to habitual violent‑offender statutes.

These consolidated appeals followed.

Opinions

The majority—Judge Adrienne Young and Judge Daniel Korobkin—affirmed both convictions but found the sentences legally unsound.

On the OWI‑3rd Sentence

The trial court imposed a 25‑year minimum, nearly four times the upper end of the recommended minimum guidelines range (19–76 months). The majority held that:

• The trial court failed to articulate adequate reasons for such an extreme departure.

• The analogy to violent habitual offenders was misplaced, because OWI‑3rd is a nonviolent offense, even if high‑risk.

• The sentence implicitly equated Brcic’s conduct with violent recidivism, which Michigan law does not support.

On the PPW Sentence

Although the PPW sentence fell within the guidelines, the majority found it still disproportionate because:

• The trial court did not meaningfully address mitigating factors, including the mental‑health crisis during which the incident occurred.

• A within‑guidelines sentence is presumptively proportional, but that presumption can be overcome—something the majority found Brcic had done.

As Judge Young wrote:

“Because Brcic’s within‑guidelines sentence for PPW is disproportionate and his OWI‑3rd sentence…is also disproportionate, we vacate his sentences and remand for resentencing.”

Speedy Trial Issue

Brcic also argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated. The panel disagreed, noting that delays were largely attributable to the COVID‑19 pandemic, and the trial was ultimately scheduled after the Department of Corrections issued a speedy‑trial notice.

Dissent

Judge Matthew Ackerman concurred in part but dissented from the decision to vacate the sentences. He argued that:

• Brcic’s repeated drunk‑driving history justified the trial court’s harsh approach.

• The majority’s decision disrupts the balance between legislative sentencing policy and judicial discretion.

• The ruling imposes new scrutiny on upward departures and undermines the presumption of proportionality for within‑guidelines sentences.

Ackerman described the case as part of a broader “tug‑of‑war” over sentencing authority following People v. Lockridge.

What’s at Stake

This decision reinforces several key principles in Michigan sentencing law:

• Extreme upward departures require clear, specific, and compelling justification.

• Nonviolent habitual conduct cannot be treated as equivalent to violent recidivism without explanation.

• Within‑guidelines sentences are not immune from proportionality review.

• Mental‑health context and other mitigating factors must be meaningfully considered.

The case now returns to the trial court for a full resentencing.

In Closing

The Court of Appeals’ ruling in People v. Brcic underscores the judiciary’s ongoing effort to ensure that Michigan sentences remain proportionate, individualized, and grounded in law, even when dealing with repeat offenders. While the convictions stand, the sentencing court must now revisit both penalties with a more rigorous and transparent analysis.

Related Links & Sources

• Michigan Court of Appeals – Published Opinions

• Michigan Sentencing Guidelines

• People v. Lockridge – Michigan Supreme Court

• Michigan Court Rules

• Michigan OWI Statute – MCL 257.625

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.