People of Michigan v. Vincente Lamar Lipsey

Michigan Supreme Court

People of Michigan v. Vincente Lamar Lipsey

DecidedSeptember 19, 2008

Docket136147

StatusPublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Vincente Lamar Lipsey (People of Michigan v. Vincente Lamar Lipsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of Michigan v. Vincente Lamar Lipsey, (Mich. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 136147 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 136147 COA: 283166 Isabella CC: 06-001391-FH VINCENTE LAMAR LIPSEY, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Isabella County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order. The prosecutor should address the parties’ agreement, as part of the plea bargain, that the defendant’s sentence in this case would be imposed concurrently to the defendant’s paroled sentence(s). In particular, the prosecutor should address: (1) what the parties understood “concurrent” sentences to mean under these circumstances; (2) whether the 168 days’ jail credit toward the maximum sentence(s) for the defendant’s paroled sentence(s), as described by the Michigan Department of Corrections Record Specialist who testified on October 12, 2007, rendered the 2007 sentence “concurrent” to the paroled sentence(s) within the meaning of the parties’ plea agreement; (3) whether the defendant received any jail credit, as a result of the plea agreement, that would not normally be afforded to a parolee who is returned to prison after being convicted of a new offense while on parole; and (4) in light of the answers to these questions, whether the term of the plea agreement requiring concurrent sentences was honored.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. September 19, 2008 _________________________________________ d0916 Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 136147 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 136147 COA: 283166 Isabella CC: 06-001391-FH VINCENTE LAMAR LIPSEY, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Isabella County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order. The prosecutor should address the parties’ agreement, as part of the plea bargain, that the defendant’s sentence in this case would be imposed concurrently to the defendant’s paroled sentence(s). In particular, the prosecutor should address: (1) what the parties understood “concurrent” sentences to mean under these circumstances; (2) whether the 168 days’ jail credit toward the maximum sentence(s) for the defendant’s paroled sentence(s), as described by the Michigan Department of Corrections Record Specialist who testified on October 12, 2007, rendered the 2007 sentence “concurrent” to the paroled sentence(s) within the meaning of the parties’ plea agreement; (3) whether the defendant received any jail credit, as a result of the plea agreement, that would not normally be afforded to a parolee who is returned to prison after being convicted of a new offense while on parole; and (4) in light of the answers to these questions, whether the term of the plea agreement requiring concurrent sentences was honored.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. September 19, 2008 _________________________________________ d0916 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People of Michigan v. Vincente Lamar Lipsey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-vincente-lamar-lipsey-mich-2008.