People v. Larkins

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Larkins

369 N.W.2d 882, 142 Mich. App. 679

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 1985

DocketDocket 73914, 73915, 74440

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 369 N.W.2d 882 (People v. Larkins) 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. Larkins, 369 N.W.2d 882, 142 Mich. App. 679 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Following a bench trial, defendants, Ricky C. Larkins, Stephen Jeter, and Erik Barnes were convicted of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. Each defendant was sentenced to a term of 5 years’ probation with the first 90 days to be served in jail. The prosecutor now appeals the sentences imposed by the trial court.

A prosecutor has no right to appeal outside the express provisions of MCL 770.12; MSA 28.1109. People v Cooke, 419 Mich 420; 355 NW2d 88 (1984). Since the Legislature provided no express authorization for appeals by the prosecution from sentences, valid or invalid, the prosecution has no authority to appeal the trial court’s sentencing order in this case. People v Wilkins, 121 Mich App 813, 816; 329 NW2d 500 (1982). Nevertheless, because we are persuaded that review is clearly warranted in this case, we exercise our discretionary authority under GCR 1963, 820.1(7) and consider the prosecution’s claim of appeal as a complaint for an order of superintending control. GCR 1963, 711.4(a). Placing defendants on probation was a void act since the lower court had no statu *681 tory authority to do so. People v Davis, 392 Mich 221, 226-227; 220 NW2d 452 (1974). See also MCL 771.1(1); MSA 28.1131(1). Since the purported placing of defendants on probation was a nullity, the matter with respect to each defendant returns to the status quo ante. As a consequence, each sentence is reversed with a remand to the lower court for new sentencing.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Per Curiam.

Following a bench trial, defendants, Ricky C. Larkins, Stephen Jeter, and Erik Barnes were convicted of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. Each defendant was sentenced to a term of 5 years’ probation with the first 90 days to be served in jail. The prosecutor now appeals the sentences imposed by the trial court.

A prosecutor has no right to appeal outside the express provisions of MCL 770.12; MSA 28.1109. People v Cooke, 419 Mich 420; 355 NW2d 88 (1984). Since the Legislature provided no express authorization for appeals by the prosecution from sentences, valid or invalid, the prosecution has no authority to appeal the trial court’s sentencing order in this case. People v Wilkins, 121 Mich App 813, 816; 329 NW2d 500 (1982). Nevertheless, because we are persuaded that review is clearly warranted in this case, we exercise our discretionary authority under GCR 1963, 820.1(7) and consider the prosecution’s claim of appeal as a complaint for an order of superintending control. GCR 1963, 711.4(a). Placing defendants on probation was a void act since the lower court had no statu *681 tory authority to do so. People v Davis, 392 Mich 221, 226-227; 220 NW2d 452 (1974). See also MCL 771.1(1); MSA 28.1131(1). Since the purported placing of defendants on probation was a nullity, the matter with respect to each defendant returns to the status quo ante. As a consequence, each sentence is reversed with a remand to the lower court for new sentencing.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 N.W.2d 882, 142 Mich. App. 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-larkins-michctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack