People v. Cummings

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Cummings

870 N.W.2d 66, 498 Mich. 895

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 2015

DocketNo. 150116; Court of Appeals No. 312583

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 870 N.W.2d 66 (People v. Cummings) 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 v. Cummings, 870 N.W.2d 66, 498 Mich. 895 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court. A sentencing judge may make a sentence imposed for first-degree criminal sexual conduct consecutive to any term of imprisonment imposed for any other criminal offense arising from the same transaction. MCL 750.520b(3). The sentencing judge in this case failed to identify any evidence from which one could conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences was warranted. On remand, the trial court shall either issue an order that provides a basis for its conclusion that the two criminal offenses arose from the same transaction, or resentence the defendant. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions [896]*896presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to file a rebuttal to the prosecution’s answer is granted. We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court. A sentencing judge may make a sentence imposed for first-degree criminal sexual conduct consecutive to any term of imprisonment imposed for any other criminal offense arising from the same transaction. MCL 750.520b(3). The sentencing judge in this case failed to identify any evidence from which one could conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences was warranted. On remand, the trial court shall either issue an order that provides a basis for its conclusion that the two criminal offenses arose from the same transaction, or resentence the defendant. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions [896]*896presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to file a rebuttal to the prosecution’s answer is granted. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 N.W.2d 66, 498 Mich. 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cummings-mich-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack