## Facts

- Deputies found Danny Boyd Solmonson around 3:45 a.m. unconscious in the driver’s seat of a vehicle stopped partly on the roadway.
- The engine was off, the keys were in the ignition, and the engine was still warm.
- An open beer can was between his legs; additional full and empty beer cans were inside the vehicle.
- No other person was present in the area.
- When awakened, Solmonson was belligerent; an officer testified Solmonson tried to turn the ignition key but was stopped.
- Solmonson failed field sobriety tasks and stated he had been drinking since about 6:00 p.m. and had consumed six beers.
- Deputies testified (without objection) that Solmonson never denied being the driver.
- Chemical testing showed an alcohol level about twice the legal limit.
- At trial, the prosecution argued Solmonson had already driven to that location while intoxicated; Solmonson presented no contradictory evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Solmonson “operated” the vehicle on a highway while intoxicated or with a prohibited BAC when he was found parked with the engine off.
2. Whether the trial court lawfully departed upward from the sentencing guidelines range (0–17 months) to a 2–10-year prison term based on criminal history, as an objective, verifiable, substantial, and compelling reason.
3. Whether Solmonson received ineffective assistance of counsel.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the circumstantial evidence permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Solmonson had operated the vehicle while intoxicated.
- The court affirmed the upward departure sentence, concluding Solmonson’s criminal history was objective and verifiable and provided a substantial and compelling reason to depart.
- The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because counsel’s decisions fell within reasonable strategy and Solmonson failed to show prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “Operation” in an OUIL prosecution may be established by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences, including inferences that the defendant drove to the location while intoxicated.
- A sentencing guidelines departure requires objective and verifiable reasons that are substantial and compelling; a defendant’s criminal history may satisfy that standard.
- Ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and resulting prejudice; an unsuccessful strategic choice alone does not establish constitutional deficiency.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an OUIL conviction based on circumstantial proof that the defendant had driven to where he was found intoxicated in the driver’s seat, approved an upward sentencing departure grounded in an objectively verifiable criminal history, and found no ineffective assistance because counsel’s actions were reasonable strategy and did not affect the outcome.


People v. Solmonson, 683 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)