Gammo-R (Sent Mem)
Gammo-R (Sent Mem)
Gammo-R (Sent Mem)
Plaintiff,
v CR 2017-264207-FH
HON. WENDY POTTS
RUDI SALIM GAMMO,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________/
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Respectfully submitted,
JESSICA R. COOPER
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
By: __________________________
Beth M. Hand
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
-5-