People v. Terrance Smith

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Terrance Smith

875 N.W.2d 197, 499 Mich. 864, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 304

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 8, 2016

Docket151591

StatusPublished

This text of 875 N.W.2d 197 (People v. Terrance Smith) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Terrance Smith, 875 N.W.2d 197, 499 Mich. 864, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 304 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remand this case to the Berrien Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resen-tence the defendant. We leave intact the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. With regard to the defendant’s challenge to costs, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remand this case to the Berrien Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resen-tence the defendant. We leave intact the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. With regard to the defendant’s challenge to costs, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

875 N.W.2d 197, 499 Mich. 864, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-terrance-smith-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack