People v. Landis

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Landis

361 N.W.2d 748, 139 Mich. App. 120

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 29, 1984

DocketDocket 77855

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 361 N.W.2d 748 (People v. Landis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Landis, 361 N.W.2d 748, 139 Mich. App. 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged and arraigned in circuit court on two counts of forgery, MCL 750.248; MSA 28.445, and two counts of uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249; MSA 28.446, and was given notice of the prosecutor’s intent to file a supplemental information charging him as an habitual offender. Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to one of the uttering and publishing counts and to the charge of being a second offender in return for dismissal of the other three counts and the charge of being a fourth time habitual criminal. Defendant was then sentenced to 7 to 14 years for uttering and publishing and 12 to 21 years as an habitual criminal. He appeals as of right, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence that shocks the conscience.

At the sentencing hearing, defendant and defense counsel stated that they had reviewed the presentence report, and defense counsel allocuted on defendant’s behalf. The trial judge reviewed defendant’s prior criminal record, which indicated that defendant has been in constant difficulty with the law since he was 18 years of age, including an attempted breaking and entering, a probation violation, joyriding, two attempted larcenies, and an assault and battery. The court noted that defendant is now aged 23 and unemployed.

Uttering and publishing is punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment.

Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the sentence was cruel and unusual under either the United States or Michigan Constitution. After reading the presentence report, we cannot say the [123]*123sentence shocks our conscience. People v Coles, 417 Mich 523; 339 NW2d 440 (1983). If anything, the sentence prescribed by the statute for uttering and publishing seems harsh; however, that is a question for the Legislature, not us.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged and arraigned in circuit court on two counts of forgery, MCL 750.248; MSA 28.445, and two counts of uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249; MSA 28.446, and was given notice of the prosecutor’s intent to file a supplemental information charging him as an habitual offender. Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to one of the uttering and publishing counts and to the charge of being a second offender in return for dismissal of the other three counts and the charge of being a fourth time habitual criminal. Defendant was then sentenced to 7 to 14 years for uttering and publishing and 12 to 21 years as an habitual criminal. He appeals as of right, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence that shocks the conscience.

At the sentencing hearing, defendant and defense counsel stated that they had reviewed the presentence report, and defense counsel allocuted on defendant’s behalf. The trial judge reviewed defendant’s prior criminal record, which indicated that defendant has been in constant difficulty with the law since he was 18 years of age, including an attempted breaking and entering, a probation violation, joyriding, two attempted larcenies, and an assault and battery. The court noted that defendant is now aged 23 and unemployed.

Uttering and publishing is punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment.

Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the sentence was cruel and unusual under either the United States or Michigan Constitution. After reading the presentence report, we cannot say the [123]*123sentence shocks our conscience. People v Coles, 417 Mich 523; 339 NW2d 440 (1983). If anything, the sentence prescribed by the statute for uttering and publishing seems harsh; however, that is a question for the Legislature, not us.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 N.W.2d 748, 139 Mich. App. 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-landis-michctapp-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack