People v. Stauffer

640 N.W.2d 869, 465 Mich. 633
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided March 26, 2002·No. Docket 119127·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion. The defendant pleaded guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree. 1 After *634 consulting the statutory sentencing guidelines, 2 the circuit court sentenced him to a prison term of seventeen to twenty-four months.

The defendant filed a motion for resentencing, which the circuit court granted. At the resentencing, the court reduced the minimum sentence from seventeen months to sixteen months. 3 The court also elaborated on its decision to sentence the defendant to prison, providing substantial and compelling reasons for doing so.

The defendant filed an application for leave to appeal, which the Court of Appeals denied. 4 The defendant now has applied to this Court for leave to appeal.

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. We offer this memorandum opinion in order to highlight an aspect of the guidelines that was the subject of attention by the circuit court.

As the guidelines were scored in this case, the high end of the range for the minimum sentence was seventeen months. 5 The circuit court duly imposed a minimum prison sentence of seventeen months (later reduced to sixteen months). At first analysis, this sentence, which did not exceed the upper limit of the guidelines range, would appear not to be a departure *635 and, thus, would appear not to require the articulation of a substantial and compelling reason. 6

However, the statutory guidelines have a number of characteristics not present in the earlier judicial guidelines. One is the rule stated in MCL 769.34(4)(a):

If the upper limit of the recommended minimum sentence range for a defendant determined under the sentencing guidelines set forth in [MCL 777.1 et seq.] is 18 months or less, the court shall impose an intermediate sanction unless the court states on the record a substantial and compelling reason to sentence the individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections. An intermediate sanction may include a jail term that does not exceed the upper limit of the recommended minimum sentence range or 12 months, whichever is less.

An “intermediate sanction” can mean a number of things, but it does not include a prison sentence. 7 *636 Thus MCL 769.34(4)(a) required the circuit court here to set forth a substantial and compelling reason for imposing a prison sentence, even though its minimum length (sixteen or seventeen months) did not exceed the upper end of the range established by the guidelines. Because in this case the circuit court did set forth substantial and compelling reasons for imposing a prison sentence, we affirm its decision.

As indicated, we highlight this requirement of the guidelines, since it may be unfamiliar or confusing to some courts or practitioners. 8 With that clarification, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 9 MCR 7.302(F)(1).

Corrigan, C.J., and Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor, Young, and Markman, JJ., concurred.

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

People v. Stauffer, 640 N.W.2d 869, 465 Mich. 633 (Mich. 2002).

640 N.W.2d 869 (People v. Stauffer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People of Michigan v. Allen Clifford McKenzie
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2016
People of Michigan v. James Allen Chandler
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2015
People v. Lucey
787 N.W.2d 133 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2010)
People v. Trostle
773 N.W.2d 266 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2009)
People v. Muttscheler
750 N.W.2d 159 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2008)
People of Michigan v. Theodore Muttscheler
Michigan Supreme Court, 2008
People of Michigan v. Jesse Gene Burns
Michigan Supreme Court, 2007
People v. Harper
739 N.W.2d 523 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2007)
People v. McCuller
715 N.W.2d 798 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2006)
People v. Solmonson
261 Mich. App. 657 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2004)
People v. Babcock
666 N.W.2d 231 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2003)