People v. Gross

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Gross

763 N.W.2d 911, 483 Mich. 951

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 2009

Docket136579

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 763 N.W.2d 911 (People v. Gross) 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. Gross, 763 N.W.2d 911, 483 Mich. 951 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinions

Summary Disposition April 17, 2009:

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate the sentences imposed by the Oakland Circuit Court, and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing on the maximum terms of defendant’s sentences only. MCL 769.24; People v Thomas, 447 Mich 390 (1994). The sentencing judge erroneously stated that he did not have authority to reduce the maximum sentence below the statutory maximum. Generally that is true. MCL 769.8(1). Here, however, defendant’s crimes were all “major controlled substance offensefs].” MCL 761.2. For such offenses, the judge has discretion to fix both the minimum and maximum terms within the limits set by statute. MCL 769.9(3); People v Wright, 432 Mich 84, 98-99 (1989); People v Perez, 417 Mich 1100.21 (1983). Accordingly, on remand, the court is not required to reduce the defendant’s maximum sentences, but may exercise its discretion to do so. Court of Appeals No. 277319.

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

Summary Disposition April 17, 2009:

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate the sentences imposed by the Oakland Circuit Court, and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing on the maximum terms of defendant’s sentences only. MCL 769.24; People v Thomas, 447 Mich 390 (1994). The sentencing judge erroneously stated that he did not have authority to reduce the maximum sentence below the statutory maximum. Generally that is true. MCL 769.8(1). Here, however, defendant’s crimes were all “major controlled substance offensefs].” MCL 761.2. For such offenses, the judge has discretion to fix both the minimum and maximum terms within the limits set by statute. MCL 769.9(3); People v Wright, 432 Mich 84, 98-99 (1989); People v Perez, 417 Mich 1100.21 (1983). Accordingly, on remand, the court is not required to reduce the defendant’s maximum sentences, but may exercise its discretion to do so. Court of Appeals No. 277319.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 N.W.2d 911, 483 Mich. 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gross-mich-2009.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack