People v. Oliver
This text of 675 N.W.2d 40 (People v. Oliver) 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.
Opinion
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Tito OLIVER, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 1, 2003 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARILYN J. KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows:
Defendant pleaded no contest for his role in an armed robbery at a home. His sentence was enhanced because the victims were terrorized. However, defendant never entered the home or dealt personally with the victims, so he could not have engaged in terrorization.
One of the primary objectives of our sentencing guidelines is to impose greater punishment on the more culpable parties. Defendant is less culpable than his accomplices. However, the accomplices each received a lesser sentence than defendant did. Defendant's sentence erroneously reflected that he had engaged in terrorization. Because this error undermines the objectives of the sentencing guidelines and has prejudiced defendant, I would remand for resentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
675 N.W.2d 40, 469 Mich. 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oliver-mich-2004.