Gerald Arbuckle

ALPENA — Gerald Arbuckle, 49, convicted of second-degree murder in 1995 in Alpena, will be resentenced after a March 11 Michigan Court of Appeals decision ruling that the trial court failed to inform Arbuckle of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel in an April 19, 2023 resentencing by the 26th Circuit Court.

The murder for which Arbuckle is convicted of was committed on Dec. 4, 1993, the News reported previously. Arbuckle, 17 at the time, shot Gary Stevens, 36, of Alpena with a sawed off .22 shotgun causing his death. The incident occurred near the former Karpus-Hunter Funeral Home parking lot.

Arbuckle was convicted of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and possession of a short-barrelled shotgun or rifle in a jury trial in May 1995.

He received a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the second degree murder conviction, two years’ imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction, and three to five years’ imprisonment for the short-barreled firearm conviction.

Arbuckle’s conviction and sentencing were affirmed in an opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in 1997.

In 2022, The Michigan Supreme Court held in People v. Stovall that parolable life sentences for second-degree murder are unconstitutional when imposed for an offense committed by a defendant before the age of 18. Arbuckle, who was 17 years old at the time of the offense, filed a motion for relief from judgment shortly after Stovall was decided. The trial court agreed that defendant was entitled to be resentenced and convened hearings for that purpose on Jan. 3, April 12, and April 19, 2023.

Arbuckle ultimately received a new sentence of 37 to 60 years for the second-degree murder conviction, two years’ imprisonment for the felony firearm conviction (to be served consecutively to the 37-year sentence), and 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment for the short-barreled firearm conviction.

The Court of Appeals resolution of the appeal concerns the trial court’s acceptance of Arbuckle’s waiver of his right to counsel. Whether he wanted to proceed without representation was first discussed at the Jan. 3, 2023 resentencing hearing. After Arbuckle’s appointed attorney stated that he believed defendant intended to proceed without counsel, Arbuckle initially confirmed that he wanted to represent himself. Soon after, however, Arbuckle indicated uncertainty about the decision, stating, for example, that he wanted ‘to have [a] consultation with counsel before sentencing if appointed one.’ The trial court thus clarified that Arbuckle had not made a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel, and defendant’s appointed attorney continued to represent him.

The April 12, 2023 resentencing hearing began with another discussion of whether defendant wished to proceed without counsel. Arbuckle said that he did not believe that the appointed attorney was qualified to represent him. He asked counsel to be standby counsel, but the appointed attorney did not want to do that.

The trial court informed Arbuckle that there was no funding for standby counsel, and gave defendant three options: “You can either have [the appointed attorney] as your counsel, or you can represent yourself. . . . Or you can hire your own attorney.”

Arbuckle chose to represent himself and the court dismissed the appointed attorney.

The Court of Appeals listed four items that the defendant should have been advised of prior to the decision to represent himself.

First, that self-representation is almost always unwise and that he may conduct a defense ultimately to his own detriment.

Second, that he is entitled to and will receive no special indulgence by the court, and that he must follow all the technical rules of substantive law, procedure, etc. The same rules that govern an attorney will govern him.

Third, that the prosecution will be represented by an experienced professional counsel, and in other words, it will not be a fair fight.

Lastly, that he is going to receive no more library privileges than those available to any other person representing themself, that he will receive no extra time for preparation and that he will have no staff of investigators at his beck and call.

Arbuckle was not advised of any of these items during the April 12, 2023 hearing.

“We need not thoroughly analyze the sufficiency of a warning of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation here, however, because there was no such warning at all,” the opinion states. “In accepting defendant’s request to proceed without counsel, the trial court did not warn defendant of the inadvisability of this decision, of defendant’s need to comply with technical legal and procedural rules, nor of any other conceivable disadvantage of representing oneself.”

The Court of Appeals concluded that the judgment of the 26th Circuit Court is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with their opinion.

The date of Arbuckle’s resentencing is set for 1:15 p.m. on April 6 in the 26th Circuit Court in Alpena.

Reagan Voetberg can be reached at 989-358-5683 or rvoetberg@TheAlpenaNews.com.