People of Michigan v. Sabrina Racine Parker
330898
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- In 2010 Parker was sentenced in separate cases to prison terms in Kent and Monroe counties but the DOC mistakenly released her on June 6, 2011 before those sentences were completed.
- In January 2013 Parker stole five credit cards; she was arrested in December 2013 and pleaded guilty to identity theft (MCL 445.65) and conspiracy to steal/retain a financial transaction device (MCL 750.157n(1)).
- The trial court imposed concurrent 4–15 year terms for the 2013 convictions and ordered those terms to run consecutively to Parker’s 2010 sentences, relying on MCL 768.7a(1).
- Parker appealed, arguing MCL 768.7a did not authorize consecutive sentencing because she was not incarcerated, an escapee, or on parole when she committed the 2013 offenses.
- The Court of Appeals held that MCL 768.7a(1) does not apply where a defendant is not under DOC control at the time of the later offense and that mere liability to serve an earlier sentence (after an erroneous release) is insufficient.
- The Court remanded to correct the judgment of sentence by striking the consecutive-sentencing provision; it declined to retain jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 768.7a(1) authorizes consecutive sentences where the defendant had been erroneously released and was not literally incarcerated when the later crimes occurred | Moved court to apply MCL 768.7a(1) so Parker’s 2013 terms begin after completion of 2010 sentences because she remained "liable to serve" that time | Parker contended she was not "incarcerated," not an escapee, and not on parole at the time of the 2013 offenses, so MCL 768.7a(1) does not apply | Court held MCL 768.7a(1) did not apply; mere liability to serve earlier time after erroneous DOC release is insufficient to find the defendant "incarcerated" for consecutive-sentencing purposes; consecutive terms vacated |
| Whether MCL 768.6 and MCL 768.7 (crimes by persons "temporarily outside the limits" of institutions) render the release "temporary" and allow MCL 768.7a(1) to apply | Prosecution argued the statutes together treat persons temporarily outside institutions as effectively confined, so MCL 768.7a(1) should apply | Parker argued her release was not temporary and DOC had ceased control; nothing in record showed a limited-duration or DOC awareness | Court held the record showed no limited/temporary release or DOC control; MCL 768.7 and MCL 768.6 do not convert an erroneous, indefinite release into "incarceration" for MCL 768.7a(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Veilleux, 493 Mich 914 (2012) (Supreme Court reversed consecutive sentences where defendant was not incarcerated at time of later offenses)
- People v Denio, 454 Mich 691 (1997) (principles of statutory interpretation: give effect to Legislature; plain language controls)
- People v Phillips, 217 Mich App 489 (1996) (purpose of consecutive-sentencing statute is deterrence by removing security of concurrent sentencing)
- People v Sanders, 130 Mich App 246 (1983) ("penal or reformatory institution" can include settings where DOC retains control over an inmate outside physical prison)
- People v Larkin, 118 Mich App 471 (1982) (literal confinement is not controlling if person remains under DOC custody or supervision)