- Home
- County Government
- Departments K-Z
- Prosecutor
- Appellate Division
Appellate Division
ABOUT THE APPELLATE COURT
Many convicted criminal offenders appeal their convictions or sentences. The Appellate Division of the Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office actively opposes appeals to uphold convictions and sentences. Their efforts result in the vast majority of appealed cases being rejected.
A STRONG TRADITION
The Appellate Division works diligently to uphold the integrity of the justice system by ensuring that appeals are reviewed thoroughly, fairly, and efficiently. Through careful examination of trial records and legal arguments, the division strives to affirm judgments that are legally sound, correct any errors that may have occurred, and bring clarity to complex legal issues. This process not only safeguards the rights of all parties involved but also provides victims with the finality they deserve, offering closure and reinforcing public trust in the judicial process. By maintaining high review standards, the Appellate Division plays a vital role in ensuring that justice is served and seen to be done.
In People v. Willis, No. 341913, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld Willis's convictions for first-degree murder and felony-firearm in the killing of Rebekah Bletsch. The prosecution presented compelling forensic evidence, including the discovery of a stolen .22-caliber Walther pistol with Willis&apso;s DNA in a locked lockbox in his van, and a Reebok glove and an item containing both Bletsch's and Willis's DNA in a locked toolbox. These items, along with a “rape kit” containing various instruments and a handwritten checklist, were central to the prosecution's theory that Willis intended to abduct, incapacitate, and murder Ms. Bletsch. The defense contended that Willis's cousin, Kevin Bluhm, was the perpetrator, but the jury rejected this theory. On appeal, Willis raised several issues, including alleged interference with attorney-client privilege, the admission of other-acts evidence, and the denial of a motion to change venue. The appellate court found no merit in these claims and affirmed the convictions and life sentence without parole. The Michigan Supreme Court later declined to review the case, leaving the convictions and sentence intact.
In People v. Willis, No. 344561, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Willis's convictions for first-degree murder and kidnapping in the disappearance of Jessica Heeringa, a gas station clerk whose body was never recovered. The court found that circumstantial evidence—including Ms. Heeringa's blood at the scene, a laser sight battery cover linked to Willis's firearm, cell phone records placing him near a vacant property he owned shortly after the abduction, and his possession of a silver minivan matching witness descriptions—was sufficient to support the convictions. Additionally, a 2016 attempted abduction involving a teenage girl who identified Willis as her assailant provided further corroboration. Although the appellate court acknowledged that some evidence should have been excluded, it concluded that the remaining untainted evidence overwhelmingly supported the jury's verdict. The Michigan Supreme Court later declined to review the case, leaving the convictions and life sentence intact.
In People v. Pollard Sr., No. 367634, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Pollard's convictions for possessing a firearm and ammunition while ineligible due to prior felony convictions, and for possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. The case arose from an undercover drug operation, where a confidential informant arranged a controlled purchase from a dealer, later identified as Pollard. Following the transaction, law enforcement executed a search warrant at Pollard's residence, uncovering narcotics, marked money, a loaded firearm, and additional ammunition. Pollard challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his identification and possession of the firearm and ammunition. The appellate court found that the prosecution presented sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to establish Pollard's identity and possession, including property records, vehicle registrations, and the informant's identification. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions.
The Appellate Division successfully clarified the juvenile code and the juvenile court's authority to impose an adult sentence for juvenile offenders when they are charged as adults and violate the terms of their probation. In People v. KB, No. 368309, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the Muskegon Circuit Court's decision to impose an adult prison sentence on KB, a juvenile who had previously received a delayed sentence after pleading no contest to assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to rob while armed. KB organized the purchase of a video gaming system from his Victim on Facebook Marketplace. The Victim and KB did not know each other. However, instead of buying the PlayStation, KB shot the Victim in an effort to rob the Victim. The delayed sentence was contingent upon KB’s compliance with probation terms. However, after admitting to two probation violations—including possession of unauthorized substances and orchestrating violent incidents—the trial court revoked the delayed sentence. It imposed a prison term of 17 to 45 years. On appeal, KB argued that the court erred by not considering the rehabilitation and risk factors outlined in MCL 712A.18i(3) before sentencing. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that under Michigan law, when a juvenile with a delayed sentence commits probation violations, the trial court is permitted to impose an adult sentence without reevaluating those factors. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision and clarified the law surrounding the imposition of adult sentences on juvenile offenders.
The Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office has successfully led legal efforts benefiting victims and law enforcement in Michigan. Notably, the Court of Appeals upheld an appeal by the Appellate Division, reversing a Circuit Court decision that dismissed a Felon in Possession of a Firearm charge (People v. Pierce, 272 Mich App 394). Additionally, the Court ruled that breaking and entering is a “specified felony,” meaning those convicted cannot legally possess firearms in Michigan.