COA 372066 PEOPLE OF MI V KRISTA MARIE WILEY-PERCY Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 9/4/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
September 04, 2026
10:45 AM
v No. 372066
Cheboygan Circuit Court
KRISTA MARIE WILEY-PERCY, LC No. 2023-006723-FH
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and O’BRIEN and LIEVENSE, JJ.
LIEVENSE, J. (concurring).
I concur with the majority opinion’s analysis in Part II (ineffective assistance of counsel)
and Part IV (sufficiency of the evidence). I also concur with the outcome in Part III (double
jeopardy) that defendant’s two convictions of animal cruelty for failing to provide adequate care
for animals, one for 25 or more animals (Count 1), and one for 10-24 animals (Count 2), violate
the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions. I write separately,
however, because I disagree with the reasoning.
The majority states that it is the facts of this case that implicate the Double Jeopardy
Clauses. I think it is the way the case was charged and, more importantly, the verdict form, that
implicates double jeopardy.
The prosecution presented evidence that defendant provided inadequate care to 10-24 dogs
and more than 25 livestock. And, since different types of animals are cared for differently, the
jury theoretically could have convicted defendant on one charge and acquitted her on the other
based on its view of the evidence.
The problem, however, is that the verdict form did not differentiate between the different
types of animals. It permitted the jury to convict for “10-24 animals,” and also “25 or more
animals,” without clarifying that the “10-24” dogs were not also included as part of the “25 or
more” animals. If it had differentiated between the two groups of animals, the “unit of

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
prosecution” for each count would have been different and would not have implicated double
jeopardy. People v Wakefield, 418 Mich 95, 111; 341 NW2d 68 (1983).
/s/ Andrew J. Lievense

-- 2 of 2 --