People v. Harper

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Harper

873 N.W.2d 304, 498 Mich. 968

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided January 29, 2016·No. No. 152114; Court of Appeals No. 319942·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate that part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that it cannot be concluded that the two separate assaults constituted part of the “same transac[969]*969tion” under MCL 750.520b(3). We agree, however, that the sentencing judge failed to identify specific evidence from which one could conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences was warranted. We therefore remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court. 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 impose concurrent sentences. 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 that part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that it cannot be concluded that the two separate assaults constituted part of the “same transac[969]*969tion” under MCL 750.520b(3). We agree, however, that the sentencing judge failed to identify specific evidence from which one could conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences was warranted. We therefore remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court. 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 impose concurrent sentences. We do not retain jurisdiction.

People v. Harper, 873 N.W.2d 304, 498 Mich. 968 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

873 N.W.2d 304 (People v. Harper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related