973 N.W.2d 36
Mich.2021Background
- In January 2013 Lonnie Arnold was convicted of aggravated indecent exposure (MCL 750.335a(2)(b)) and indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person (MCL 750.335a(2)(c)); he was also charged as a fourth-offense habitual offender.
- MCL 750.335a(2)(c) provides an indeterminate sentence with a mandatory minimum of "1 day" and a maximum of "life" for offenses committed by a "sexually delinquent person."
- At sentencing the trial court used the legislative sentencing guidelines (MCL 777.16q and MCL 777.62) and imposed 25 to 70 years (within the guidelines range); Arnold argued he should have received either "1 day to life" or a term-of-years under the Penal Code.
- This Court previously held (People v Arnold, 502 Mich 438) that an offender convicted under § 335a(2) while a sexually delinquent person can receive either the unmodifiable "1 day to life" sentence of § 335a(2)(c) or the alternative statutory penalties in § 335a(2)(a) or (b); the case was remanded to resolve whether the guidelines alter that scheme.
- The Court of Appeals held the guidelines created a separate sentencing alternative (allowing a term-of-years consistent with the grids) and remanded for resentencing; the Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Arnold) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing guidelines create a substantive alternative penalty to MCL 750.335a(2)(c) | The guidelines (MCL 777.16q and MCL 777.62) list § 335a(2)(c) as a Class A offense and thus supply an alternative term-of-years sentencing scheme | § 335a(2)(c) itself prescribes a mandatory, unmodifiable "1 day to life" sentence; the guidelines are procedural and subordinate and cannot replace the statutory penalty | The guidelines do not create a substantive alternative; sentencing must follow § 335a(2) (per Arnold I) |
| Whether the reference to § 335a(2)(c) in MCL 777.16q makes MCL 777.62 applicable to sexually delinquent-person cases | The explicit listing shows legislative intent for the guidelines to apply to § 335a(2)(c) offenses | That listing is nugatory as to creating a new penalty; the guidelines cannot supplant the Penal Code penalty or authorize term-of-years minima conflicting with § 335a(2)(c) | The § 16q reference is effectively nugatory for changing penalties; § 62 does not apply to § 335a(2)(c) |
| Whether application of the guidelines would indirectly amend the Penal Code in violation of Const. 1963, art. 4, § 25 (Reenact-Publish) | The guidelines are independent and do not unconstitutionally amend the Penal Code | The guidelines would indirectly alter substantive penalties without reenact/republication, violating the constitutional reenact-publish rule | Majority avoided the constitutional question; concurrence agreed result could be (and should be) resolved on Reenact-Publish grounds but the ultimate remedy (resentencing) is the same |
| Whether Arnold’s 25–70 year sentence is valid | The People defended use of guidelines-computed range | Arnold argued his sentence is invalid because it did not follow either the statutory term-of-years option or the unmodifiable "1 day to life" sentence | Held: Arnold’s sentence (25–70 years under the guidelines) is invalid; case remanded for resentencing consistent with § 335a(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Arnold, 502 Mich 438 (2018) (prior Supreme Court opinion interpreting MCL 750.335a; held § 335a(2)(c) is an alternative unmodifiable "1 day to life" sentence)
- People v Arnold (On Remand), 328 Mich App 592 (2019) (Court of Appeals holding the sentencing guidelines supply an alternative term-of-years sentencing option)
- People v Buehler, 477 Mich 18 (2007) (discussed interplay between § 335a and guidelines; later disavowed in part by Arnold I)
- People v Pinkney, 501 Mich 259 (2018) (statutory-interpretation principles: give effect to every word; rule of lenity noted)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (principles regarding guidelines, statutory maximums, and judicial discretion in sentencing)
- Beckles v United States, 137 S Ct 886 (2017) (U.S. Supreme Court: federal guidelines do not create substantive criminal penalties; they guide judicial discretion)
- Alan v Wayne County, 388 Mich 210 (1972) (explains limits on indirect amendment by reference and reenact-publish doctrine)
- People ex rel Drake v Mahaney, 13 Mich 481 (1865) (early Michigan precedent on when an act is "complete in itself" under reenact-publish principles)