People of Michigan v. Adam Michael Kirchen
332150
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Defendant Adam Kirchen pleaded guilty to two counts of larceny in a building arising from thefts at a Charlotte museum.
- Information charged the thefts as occurring “on or about May 1, 2015, through June 9, 2015.” At plea, Kirchen said the thefts occurred "during the middle of May."
- Kirchen was already serving a 5–20 year sentence for an unarmed robbery in another county; he had been released on bond as of May 29, 2015.
- The trial court concluded Kirchen committed the museum thefts while on bond and, under MCL 768.7b, ordered the new sentences to run consecutively to the existing 5–20 year sentence.
- Kirchen was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 46 months to 15 years on each count, to run consecutive to his existing sentence; he appealed, and the Michigan Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
- The prosecution conceded, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the restitution award must be adjusted to reflect recovery of a stolen bayonet; otherwise the convictions and sentences were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kirchen was "on bond" when he committed the museum thefts, permitting consecutive sentences under MCL 768.7b | Prosecution: Time window in information (May 1–June 9) and evidence support that thefts occurred after May 29 while Kirchen was on bond | Kirchen: His plea statement that thefts occurred "during the middle of May" shows they occurred before he was on bond | Court: Affirmed — record supports that the thefts could have occurred after May 29; trial court did not abuse discretion in finding Kirchen was on bond |
| Whether consecutive sentencing under MCL 768.7b was an abuse of discretion | Prosecution: Statute authorizes consecutive sentences when a felony is committed while on bond; trial court acted within its discretion | Kirchen: Consecutive sentencing inappropriate because crimes were not committed while on bond | Court: Affirmed — application of MCL 768.7b was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes |
| Whether restitution must be reduced because one stolen item (a bayonet) was recovered | Prosecution: Initially unclear, but concedes restitution should reflect recovered property | Kirchen: Restitution should be reduced to account for recovery of the bayonet | Court: Remanded to correct restitution to reflect recovery; affirmed in all other respects |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chambers, 430 Mich 217 (court explains that consecutive sentences are forbidden absent statutory authority)
- People v. Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649 (review of consecutive sentencing under a statute is for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Thompson, 117 Mich App 210 (discusses purpose of MCL 768.7b to deter defendants on bond from committing additional crimes)