People of Michigan v. Jimmy Lee Fuller
Key claim: The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant’s convictions and life-without-parole sentences for multiple counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a minor.
Abstract
Michigan Court of Appeals opinion decided 2026-11-06. If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, FOR PUBLICATION November 06, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:42 PM
v No. 372013 Saginaw Circuit Court JIMMY LEE FULLER, LC No. 22-048921-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and BAZZI and LIEVENSE, JJ.
LIEVENSE, J.
Defendant, Jimmy Lee Fuller, appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of six counts of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(2)(b) (person under 13, defendant 17 years of age or older), and accosting a child for an immoral purpose, MCL 750.145a. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole for each CSC-I conviction, and 29 to 48 months’ imprisonment for the accosting a child for an immoral purpose conviction, with credit for 842 days served. Defendant raises evidentiary and constitutional challenges to his convictions and sentences. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. OFFENSE CONDUCT
In July of 2020, the victim in this case was 11 years old and living with her younger brother
and their mother, Tonya Ledesma, Ledesma’s boyfriend, and the victim’s great-grandfather at their home in Saginaw County. Defendant is Ledesma’s boyfriend’s cousin, and he began living in a camper on the family’s property in July 2020 because “[h]e didn’t have a place to go.” At the
-1-
time, defendant was 38 years old. While he lived in the camper, defendant had full access to the home, would sometimes sleep in the home, and was often left alone with the victim and her brother.
The victim turned 12 in the fall of 2020. In December 2020, the victim received a cell
phone as a Christmas gift. Shortly thereafter, defendant suggested the victim download Snapchat1 so they could communicate privately; defendant created a user profile for the victim and befriended her on the app. The victim initially saved defendant’s name in her Snapchat contacts as “Jimmy,” but eventually changed his name to “Baby” with two red hearts. At trial, the victim described their relationship on Snapchat as going “from casual to more like we were in a relationship to more sexual” in 2021. For example, defendant sent the victim pictures of himself and of his penis, and he asked her to send nude pictures of herself to him. The two also talked on Snapchat about possibly having sex. Eventually, before Easter of 2021, the relationship progressed to multiple sexual encounters in the victim’s bedroom, the bathroom, in the camper outside, and at the victim’s grandfather’s house in Genesee County. The victim’s younger brother testified that he saw defendant and the victim engage in vaginal and oral sex in the camper and in the bathroom multiple times. The victim told her brother that defendant and she were in a relationship.
In August 2021, Ledesma heard about a possible relationship between defendant and the
victim from defendant’s sister. Ledesma spoke with the victim’s brother, and he disclosed the sexual acts he witnessed, and that defendant and the victim were dating. Ledesma talked to the victim, and she eventually confirmed what her brother reported. Ledesma called 911, an ambulance took the victim to the hospital on August 3, 2021, and the police were notified.
B. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
Defendant was charged with six counts of CSC-I (counts 1-6) and one count of accosting
a child for an immoral purpose (count 7) for the conduct that occurred from about January to August 2021, arrested on November 7, 2021, and arraigned in the district court on November 8, 2021. Defendant waived a formal reading of the charges and stood mute, and a plea of not guilty was entered. Because of defendant’s 2002 guilty plea conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c(1)(a), in Alcona County, he was held without bond.
At a pre-exam conference on November 17, 2021, defendant was re-referred to the Office
of Assigned Counsel after previously having been denied assigned counsel for failure to complete the required forms. Defendant again requested an assigned attorney, and the trial court instructed defendant to completely fill out the required information. The court then instructed the prosecutor to call off the witnesses scheduled for November 22, 2021, so an attorney could be appointed. In delaying the pre-exam conference, the court noted that defendant’s initial request for assigned counsel was denied because of his “failure to completely fill-out the requested information,” but a delay was necessary because the court “would like to have an attorney appointed for [defendant].”
1 “Snapchat is an application for mobile phones used to share text messages, photographs, and other images among a defined group of ‘real friends.’ ” In re JP, 330 Mich App 1, 3; 944 NW2d 422 (2019). “One feature of the application vaporizes the messages after a few seconds unless a recipient deliberately saves them.” Id. at 4.
-2-
Another pre-exam conference was held on November 22, 2021, where the defense and the prosecution both requested an in-person exam. An in-person exam was scheduled for December 21, 2021. The hearing was adjourned, and the register of actions does not state why, however, the prosecution’s brief on appeal states that it was due to a COVID-19 surge in the local jail at the time, all hearings were held virtually, and the defense wanted an in-person hearing.2 The court held an in-person preliminary exam on February 1, 2022, and defendant was bound over to the circuit court to stand trial.
The register of actions reflects that nothing happened in this case until September 8, 2022,
and again on November 7, 2022, when trial notices purportedly were sent to the parties informing them that trial was set for January 24, 2023. When the trial date arrived, the prosecutor informed the court that she was not ready to proceed because she had not received notice that trial was scheduled for that date. Defense counsel indicated he and defendant were prepared to proceed and objected to an adjournment, arguing the judge’s clerk sent out an e-mail the week prior stating that the matter was set for trial. The trial court granted the prosecution’s request to adjourn and indicated on the record that a new electronic case management system had been implemented in the courthouse that was “horrendous” and “not operating as it should,” and had failed to properly provide notice to parties in other cases. The trial court stated “I understand the defendant is in custody. I will get it set for trial as soon as possible.”
The next status conference was set for and occurred on February 6, 2023, where the
prosecution informed the trial court of its progress on the case and that it would not be making defendant a plea offer to anything other than CSC-I which, given defendant’s criminal history, would require a sentence of life without parole under MCL 750.520b(2)©. When defendant expressed his frustration with the prosecution’s delay in being ready for trial, the court reiterated there were issues with the faulty electronic case management system, that it was no one’s fault, and that it would get defenda
Why this matters
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant’s convictions and life-without-parole sentences for multiple counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a minor.