People v. Moore

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Moore

284 N.W.2d 483, 91 Mich. App. 319, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2254

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1979

DocketDocket 78-4651

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 284 N.W.2d 483 (People v. Moore) 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. Moore, 284 N.W.2d 483, 91 Mich. App. 319, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2254 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

N. J. Kaufman, J.

We accept the facts as presented by Chief Judge Danhof in his dissent and generally agree with his presentation of the law. Additionally, for the reasons stated in the dissent, we specifically note our disagreement with People v Allen, 79 Mich App 100; 261 NW2d 225 (1977). However, under the instant facts, we feel compelled to remand the case for resentencing and direct the trial judge to secure an updated presentence report prior to resentencing. See my dissent in People v Triplett, 91 Mich App 82; 283 NW2d 658 (1979).

When the Supreme Court remanded this case for resentencing because defendant was not assisted by counsel at the original sentencing, they meant just that. At the resentencing, defendant was entitled to an updated presentence report and an opportunity for allocution. Those steps were necessary to insure that the trial judge was fully and accurately acquainted with defendant’s background. See MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144, People v Brown, 393 Mich 174; 224 NW2d 38 (1974), People v Lee, 391 Mich 618, 634-635; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McFarlin, 389 Mich 557, 574; 208 NW2d 504 (1973).

Defense counsel and defendant presented some evidence of defendant’s prison conduct to the re-sentencing court, but it is not at all clear that the [322]*322court considered this information in resentencing defendant to the same prison terms he had received more than 10 years before. In light of the court’s statement that defendant was being sentenced nunc pro tunc, it is possible that the judge ignored defendant’s prison conduct altogether. An updated presentence report would have assured due consideration of defendant’s prison conduct.

Remanded for resentencing.

D. C. Riley, J., concurred.

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

N. J. Kaufman, J.

We accept the facts as presented by Chief Judge Danhof in his dissent and generally agree with his presentation of the law. Additionally, for the reasons stated in the dissent, we specifically note our disagreement with People v Allen, 79 Mich App 100; 261 NW2d 225 (1977). However, under the instant facts, we feel compelled to remand the case for resentencing and direct the trial judge to secure an updated presentence report prior to resentencing. See my dissent in People v Triplett, 91 Mich App 82; 283 NW2d 658 (1979).

When the Supreme Court remanded this case for resentencing because defendant was not assisted by counsel at the original sentencing, they meant just that. At the resentencing, defendant was entitled to an updated presentence report and an opportunity for allocution. Those steps were necessary to insure that the trial judge was fully and accurately acquainted with defendant’s background. See MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144, People v Brown, 393 Mich 174; 224 NW2d 38 (1974), People v Lee, 391 Mich 618, 634-635; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McFarlin, 389 Mich 557, 574; 208 NW2d 504 (1973).

Defense counsel and defendant presented some evidence of defendant’s prison conduct to the re-sentencing court, but it is not at all clear that the [322]*322court considered this information in resentencing defendant to the same prison terms he had received more than 10 years before. In light of the court’s statement that defendant was being sentenced nunc pro tunc, it is possible that the judge ignored defendant’s prison conduct altogether. An updated presentence report would have assured due consideration of defendant’s prison conduct.

Remanded for resentencing.

D. C. Riley, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 N.W.2d 483, 91 Mich. App. 319, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moore-michctapp-1979.

Opinions

N. J. Kaufman, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack