personal use exception in Michigan

2019People v Pearson, 157 Mich App 68, 72 ; 403 NW2d 498 (1987).1 In both cases, the Court held that a personal use exception applies only to the preparation and compounding of a controlled substance already in existence, not the growth or manufacture of new controlled substances.

2019People v Pearson, 157 Mich App 68, 72 ; 403 NW2d 498 (1987).1 In both cases, the Court held that a personal use exception applies only to the preparation and compounding of a controlled substance already in existence, not the growth or manufacture of new controlled substances.

2017Cf. Pegenau , 447 Mich. at 293 , 523 N.W.2d 325 ; (opinion by MALLETT , J.); Hartuniewicz , 294 Mich. App. at 245 , 816 N.W.2d 442 Accordingly, if defendant believed he was entitled to a personal-use defense, the burden was on defendant to raise the issue as an affirmative defense and to *245 present some competent evidence of preparation or compounding for personal use.

2017Cf. Pegenau , 447 Mich. at 293 , 523 N.W.2d 325 ; (opinion by MALLETT , J.); Hartuniewicz , 294 Mich. App. at 245 , 816 N.W.2d 442 Accordingly, if defendant believed he was entitled to a personal-use defense, the burden was on defendant to raise the issue as an affirmative defense and to *245 present some competent evidence of preparation or compounding for personal use.

2017"To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that (1) counsel's performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceedings would have been different." People v. Lockett , 295 Mich. App. 165 , 187, 814 N.W.2d 295 (2012).

2017“To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that (1) counsel's performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 187 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012).

2017Ericksen , 288 Mich. App. at 201 , 793 N.W.2d 120 .

2017Ericksen , 288 Mich. App. at 201 , 793 N.W.2d 120 .

2017In view of these different methods of manufacturing, following the reasoning set forth in Pearson, we hold that one may not claim the personal use exception for making or cooking methamphetamine. 3 Making or cooking methamphetamine clearly involves the creation of methamphetamine, meaning that it constitutes production, propagation, conversion, or processing of methamphetamine as opposed to the mere “preparation or compounding” of 325 Ark 110, 124 ; 926 SW2d 650 (1996); State v Underwood, 168 W Va 52, 58; 281 SE2d 491 (1981); State v Boothe, 285 NW2d 760, 762 (Iowa Ct App).

2017In view of these different methods of manufacturing, following the reasoning set forth in Pearson, we hold that one may not claim the personal use exception for making or cooking methamphetamine. 3 Making or cooking methamphetamine clearly involves the creation of methamphetamine, meaning that it constitutes production, propagation, conversion, or processing of methamphetamine as opposed to the mere “preparation or compounding” of 325 Ark 110, 124 ; 926 SW2d 650 (1996); State v Underwood, 168 W Va 52, 58; 281 SE2d 491 (1981); State v Boothe, 285 NW2d 760, 762 (Iowa Ct App).

2017Cf. Pegenau , 447 Mich. at 293 , 523 N.W.2d 325 ; (opinion by MALLETT , J.); Hartuniewicz , 294 Mich. App. at 245 , 816 N.W.2d 442 Accordingly, if defendant believed he was entitled to a personal-use defense, the burden was on defendant to raise the issue as an affirmative defense and to *245 present some competent evidence of preparation or compounding for personal use.

2017Cf. Pegenau , 447 Mich. at 293 , 523 N.W.2d 325 ; (opinion by MALLETT , J.); Hartuniewicz , 294 Mich. App. at 245 , 816 N.W.2d 442 Accordingly, if defendant believed he was entitled to a personal-use defense, the burden was on defendant to raise the issue as an affirmative defense and to *245 present some competent evidence of preparation or compounding for personal use.

2017Because a motion to withdraw a plea or correct an invalid sentence is a prerequisite to substantive review on direct appeal under MCR 6.310 and MCR 6.429, the defendant was effectively deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. [ Broyles , 498 Mich. at 927 -928 , 871 N.W.2d 209 .] Following the reasoning in Broyles , while we may not directly address the personal-use exception on appeal, we may consider it to determine whether counsel's failure to properly raise this issue in the trial court, and to file a motion to withdraw a plea on this

2017Because a motion to withdraw a plea or correct an invalid sentence is a prerequisite to substantive review on direct appeal under MCR 6.310 and MCR 6.429, the defendant was effectively deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. [Broyles, 498 Mich 927 - 928.] Following the reasoning in Broyles, while we may not directly address the personal use exception on appeal, we may consider it to determine whether counsel’s failure to properly raise this issue in the trial court, and to file a motion to withdraw a plea on this basis, constituted the i

2017Because a motion to withdraw a plea or correct an invalid sentence is a prerequisite to substantive review on direct appeal under MCR 6.310 and MCR 6.429, the defendant was effectively deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. [ Broyles , 498 Mich. at 927 -928 , 871 N.W.2d 209 .] Following the reasoning in Broyles , while we may not directly address the personal-use exception on appeal, we may consider it to determine whether counsel's failure to properly raise this issue in the trial court, and to file a motion to withdraw a plea on this

2017As demonstrated by the Supreme Court order in People v Broyles, 498 Mich 927 ; 871 NW2d 209 (2015), a claim of ineffective assistance of -3- counsel can serve as a basis for relief relative to a plea despite a failure to comply with MCR 6.310.

2017Super. 301 , 308, 23 A.3d 489 (App Div, 2011) ; State v. Bossow , 274 Neb. 836 , 845-846; 744 N.W.2d 43 (2008) ; Owens v. State , 325 Ark. 110 , 124, 926 S.W.2d 650 (1996) ; State v. Underwood , 168 W.

2017Consistent with Pearson, numerous state courts interpreting the terms “preparation” and “compounding” have concluded that the personal use exception applies “when [an] individual is already in possession of the controlled substance and is simply making it ready for use . . . or combining it with other ingredients for use.” See, e.g., State v Wilson, 421 NJ Super 301, 308; 23 A3d 489 (2011); State v Bossow, 274 Neb 836, 846; 744 NW2d 43 (2008); Owens v State, -6- Mich App at 71 (citation omitted).

2017See alsoMCL 333.1111(1) ; MCL 333.7121(2) ; People v. Thompson , 477 Mich. 146 , 155 n. 9, 730 N.W.2d 708 (2007). 3 Our decision today rests in large part on the reasoning and analysis performed by this Court in Pearson , wherein we similarly determined that growing marijuana is not protected by the personal-use exception.

2017See alsoMCL 333.1111(1) ; MCL 333.7121(2) ; People v. Thompson , 477 Mich. 146 , 155 n. 9, 730 N.W.2d 708 (2007). 3 Our decision today rests in large part on the reasoning and analysis performed by this Court in Pearson , wherein we similarly determined that growing marijuana is not protected by the personal-use exception.

2017Super. 301 , 308, 23 A.3d 489 (App Div, 2011) ; State v. Bossow , 274 Neb. 836 , 845-846; 744 N.W.2d 43 (2008) ; Owens v. State , 325 Ark. 110 , 124, 926 S.W.2d 650 (1996) ; State v. Underwood , 168 W.

2017In view of these different methods of manufacturing, following the reasoning set forth in Pearson, we hold that one may not claim the personal use exception for making or cooking methamphetamine. 3 Making or cooking methamphetamine clearly involves the creation of methamphetamine, meaning that it constitutes production, propagation, conversion, or processing of methamphetamine as opposed to the mere “preparation or compounding” of 325 Ark 110, 124 ; 926 SW2d 650 (1996); State v Underwood, 168 W Va 52, 58; 281 SE2d 491 (1981); State v Boothe, 285 NW2d 760, 762 (Iowa Ct App).

2020Making or cooking methamphetamine clearly involves the creation of methamphetamine, meaning that it constitutes production, propagation, conversion, or processing of methamphetamine as opposed to the mere “preparation or compounding” of existing methamphetamine for personal use. [Emphasis added.] This Court also provided guidance in Hunter, 201 Mich App at 674 , in which the defendant was convicted of manufacturing crack cocaine.

2019Defendant relies on People v Baham, 321 Mich App 228 ; 909 NW2d 836 (2017), a case in which this Court interpreted a similar personal use exception regarding the manufacture of controlled substances, but in the context of manufacture of methamphetamine.

2019Defendant relies on People v Baham, 321 Mich App 228 ; 909 NW2d 836 (2017), a case in which this Court interpreted a similar personal use exception regarding the manufacture of controlled substances, but in the context of manufacture of methamphetamine.

2017Consistently with Pearson , numerous state courts interpreting the terms "preparation" and "compounding" have concluded that the personal-use exception applies "when [an] individual is] [already in possession of the controlled substance and is simply making it ready for use ... or combining it with other ingredients for use." See, e.g., State v. Wilson , 421 N.J.

2017Super. 301 , 308, 23 A.3d 489 (App Div, 2011) ; State v. Bossow , 274 Neb. 836 , 845-846; 744 N.W.2d 43 (2008) ; Owens v. State , 325 Ark. 110 , 124, 926 S.W.2d 650 (1996) ; State v. Underwood , 168 W.

2017See Fonville, 291 Mich App at 377 ; Adkins, 272 Mich App at 38 .

2017“Generally, when language is included in one section of a statute but omitted from another section, it is presumed that the drafters acted intentionally and purposely in their inclusion or exclusion.” People v McFall, 309 Mich App 377, 385 ; 873 NW2d 112 (2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2017“Generally, when language is included in one section of a statute but omitted from another section, it is presumed that the drafters acted intentionally and purposely in their inclusion or exclusion.” People v McFall, 309 Mich App 377, 385 ; 873 NW2d 112 (2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

1987The production, propagation, conversion and processing of a controlled substance "contemplate a significantly higher degree of activity involving the controlled substance . . . and thus are more appropriately made felonies with regard to . . . whether the controlled substance so 'manufactured’ was for personal use or for distribution.” Id. 1 In State v Boothe, 285 NW2d 760, 762 (Iowa App, 1979), aff'd 284 NW2d 206 (Iowa, 1979), the personal use defense was similarly rejected: If it had been the intention of the legislature that all acts within the statutory definition [of *72 "manufacture”] we

1987The production, propagation, conversion and processing of a controlled substance "contemplate a significantly higher degree of activity involving the controlled substance . . . and thus are more appropriately made felonies with regard to . . . whether the controlled substance so 'manufactured’ was for personal use or for distribution.” Id. 1 In State v Boothe, 285 NW2d 760, 762 (Iowa App, 1979), aff'd 284 NW2d 206 (Iowa, 1979), the personal use defense was similarly rejected: If it had been the intention of the legislature that all acts within the statutory definition [of *72 "manufacture”] we