## Facts

- An undercover narcotics officer, introduced to Deon Lamont Claypool through a drug-trade contact, made three controlled crack-cocaine buys from Claypool in March 2001.
- The officer purchased 28.35 grams (March 8), 49.2 grams (March 12), and 127.575 grams (March 14).
- Claypool was charged based on the third sale and pleaded guilty to delivery of 50 or more but less than 225 grams of cocaine.
- The offense carried a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
- The defense sought a downward departure, citing Claypool’s limited prior record and arguing that police conduct caused escalating quantities (“sentencing manipulation/entrapment/escalation”).
- The trial court departed downward from the mandatory minimum, sentencing Claypool to 8 to 20 years and expressly relying on “escalation” by the undercover officer.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Michigan’s legislative sentencing guidelines, a sentencing court may base a downward departure (including below a statutory mandatory minimum) on police conduct labeled “sentencing manipulation,” “sentencing entrapment,” or “sentencing escalation.”

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that police misconduct, standing alone, is not a proper sentencing factor and that “sentencing manipulation/entrapment/escalation” is not an independent doctrine authorizing departure.
- The Court held that if it is objectively and verifiably shown that police conduct (or another precipitating cause) actually altered the defendant’s intent, that altered intent may be considered as a potential substantial and compelling reason for departure.
- Because the record did not clearly show whether the trial court relied impermissibly on police conduct itself or permissibly on an objectively verifiable alteration of Claypool’s intent, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision in part.
- The case was remanded for resentencing or for re-articulation on the record of proper departure reasons.

## Legal Principles

- A downward departure under Michigan’s legislative sentencing guidelines requires “substantial and compelling” reasons that are objective and verifiable, of considerable worth to sentencing, and clearly stated on the record.
- Departure reasons must be tied to the offender and the offense and generally must not duplicate factors already accounted for by the guidelines scoring.
- Police investigative conduct, by itself, is not an appropriate basis for a sentencing departure.
- The effect of police conduct may matter only to the extent it produces an objectively and verifiably demonstrable change in the defendant’s criminal intent, which may bear on culpability and can support a departure if it meets the substantial-and-compelling standard.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court rejected “sentencing manipulation/entrapment/escalation” as a standalone basis for a downward departure, but allowed consideration of objectively verifiable proof that police conduct actually altered the defendant’s intent; it remanded because the trial court’s rationale did not clearly apply that standard.


People v. Claypool, 470 Mich. 715, 684 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 2004)