STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff,

v CR 2017-264207-FH
HON. WENDY POTTS
RUDI SALIM GAMMO,

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________/

JESSICA R. COOPER (P23242)

OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
1200 NORTH TELEGRAPH ROAD
PONTIAC, MI 48341

BARTON W. MORRIS, JR. (P54701) SHAWN P. SMITH (P51431)

520 N. MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 825
ROYAL OAK, MI 48067-1815 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48012-0825
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
_____________________________________________________________________________/

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PEOPLE’S REQUEST OF THIS HONORABLE

COURT TO NOT ADHERE TO ITS COBBS EVALUATION, ALLOW THE
DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND PROCEED TO TRIAL AND NOTICE
TO DEFENDANT AND THE COURT OF THE PEOPLE’S REQUESTED
AMENDMENT TO GUIDELINES AS CALCULATED BY THE MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The sentencing information report prepared by the probation department correctly scores

the Defendant’s prior record variables at 130 points. However, it the People’s position that he

offense variables are inaccurately calculated. The Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)

correctly scores OV 14 at ten points. However, the MDOC fails to score OV 13 and OV 12 both

of which should be scored at ten points. Guidelines are properly calculated at 84 months to 280

months.

-1-
 The Defendant has pled guilty to Conducting a Criminal Enterprise. The Defendant’s

lengthy confession which was admitted into evidence at the preliminary examination established

that Defendant was acting in concert with his co-defendants as well as many other individuals

located in the state of California to engage in a pattern of racketeering for financial gain. OV 13

states that ten points should be scored if the offense was part of a pattern of felonious criminal

activity directly related to membership in an organized criminal group. The use notes further

instruct that the presence or absence of multiple offenders or the degree of sophistication of the

group is not as important as the existence of the group. Clearly, the facts in this case, as well as

the charged offense to which Defendant pled, support a finding that ten points should be scored

for offense variable 13.

The testimony at preliminary examination by co-defendant Chon, postal inspector Rose

and the admission of Defendant’s confession all establish that OV 12 should be properly scored

at ten points. OV 12 states that ten points is properly scored when there are three or more

contemporaneous felonious criminal acts. The offense date of the criminal enterprise and the

conspiracy counts ranged from December of 2013 – December of 2015. During this time period

the Defendant made numerous deliveries of marijuana from the state of California to the state of

Michigan. These trips to California either by the Defendant or at his direction by his co-

defendant were made one to two times a month. Defendant admitted that he would fly alone or

with Chon or others to California, purchase marijuana and mail it to various addresses in

Oakland County and Wayne County. The marijuana would then be sold here. Inspector Rose

testified to the postal records documenting numerous deliveries to many addresses Defendant

either owned or where his co-conspirators resided. Defendant would retrieve the marijuana and

sell it at his business. Chon testified she made many trips to California for the Defendant and

shipped marijuana back to Michigan. Each delivery is a separate felony. Defendant was not

-2-
charged with those deliveries. Defendant also maintained several other buildings for the purpose

of storing drugs for which he was not charged. Judge Meinecke commented at bind over there

were numerous other charges that could have been brought that were not issued. Without

question OV 12 is properly scored at ten points. As such the total offense variables are proper at

30 points which places the Defendant at Level III.

This Honorable Court entered into a Cobbs agreement for 66 months. The agreement is

for a sentence below the advisory guideline range. The People urge this Honorable Court to not

follow its Cobbs agreement, allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. While

the People are aware that the sentencing guidelines are merely advisory the sentence must still be

proportionate. MCL 769.34(10) is still good law and states as follows:

If a minimum sentence is within the appropriate guidelines sentence range, the

court of appeals shall affirm that sentence and shall not remand for resentencing
absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information
relied upon in determining the defendant’s sentence. A party shall not raise on
appeal an issue challenging the scoring of the sentencing guidelines or
challenging the accuracy of information relied upon in determining a sentence
that is within the appropriate guidelines sentence range unless the party has raised
the issue at sentencing, in a proper motion for resentencing, or in a proper motion
to remand filed in the court of appeals.

The Supreme Court in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) stated that a sentencing

court must start with the sentencing guidelines. It stated, “Sentencing courts must, however,

continue to consult the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a

sentence. Further, sentencing courts must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate

appellate review. People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 549; 339 NW2d 440 (1983), overruled in part

on other grounds by People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 644; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).” Sentencing

guidelines inform this Honorable Court what is a presumptively proportionate sentence.

The Defendant’s prior record variable score exceeds the maximum guide range of 75 by

73%. If anything, the Defendant should be receiving a sentence that exceeds the guideline range,

-3-
certainly not a sentence below the range. The Defendant was involved in this ongoing criminal

activing for at least a two year period if not longer. The Defendant was on probation to this

circuit court for the entirety of his leadership in the criminal enterprise.

At the time of the Cobbs evaluation the People were unaware of the Defendant’s juvenile

history. The Defendant was born in 1979. Commencing in 1994 at the early age of 15 the

Defendant was placed on probation for 18 months for an aggravated assault. While on that

probation the Defendant was found guilty of three counts of felonious assault and a count of

felony firearm. He was discharged from probation on May 21, 1996 and on February 4, 1997,

just nine months later he as charged with delivery/manufacturing marijuana and given a jail

sentence suspended for participation in RIDP. Defendant was discharged from probation again

on May 19, 1997. While on probation for that offense Defendant was arrested for numerous

felonies in Wayne County which were plea bargained down to one felony for which the

Defendant received a straight jail term. Without re-typing the entire PSI, a careful review of the

Defendant’s criminal history illustrates that since the age of 15 the Defendant has been on

probation or in jail or in prison almost the entire time. Defendant has violated nearly every

probation term he has been given by committing new crimes. One of the offenses he committed

(OWI) he committed while on work release status from the Oakland County Jail.

Defendant has no regard for the judicial system or the laws of this state. Defendant was

on probation for two counts of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. After

serving the jail portion of that sentence, Defendant was violated on probation and sentenced to

20 months- 10 years in the MDOC. Defendant was paroled on October 7, 2008 and discharged

from parole on October 7, 2010. Two months later the Defendant is arrested for and later

convicted of conspiring to commit misconduct in office by engaging in a ticket fixing scheme.

Defendant was sentenced to 5 years of probation with the first year in the county jail

-4-
commencing on January 5, 2011. After his release from Jail there was a very short period of

time, if any, prior to the Defendant beginning this criminal enterprise which he somehow

conducted while on probation to the Honorable Leo Bowman.

At the young age of 38 the Defendant has 7 adult felony convictions and 9 misdemeanor

convictions. These do not include the four juvenile convictions and one misdemeanor.

Defendant’s criminal conduct has never ceased. Defendant shows no remorse for his behavior

and thinks he should receive a fine. The advisory guidelines in the instant offense demonstrate

that a proportionate sentence for someone with a prior offense variable score of 75 or higher and

an offense variable score of 30 points should fall in the range of 84 months to 280 months, or 7

years to 23 1/3 years. Defendant’s record scores him at 130 points. This Honorable Court

indicated that it would sentence the Defendant to a term of 5 ½ years. Respectfully, that is a

disproportionate sentence given both the Defendant’s past and the longevity and complexity of

the criminal organization which he led. The People are requesting, at a minimum, a sentence at

the top end of the advisory guideline range.

Respectfully submitted,
JESSICA R. COOPER
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

By: __________________________
Beth M. Hand
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

DATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2018

BMH-18/Gammo-R (Sent Mem).docx

-5-