People v. Clark
315 Mich. App. 219
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to delivery of <50 grams of cocaine (second offense) based on conduct in July 2013; prosecution sought second-offense enhancement.
- At the time of the offense defendant was serving a term of federal supervised release that followed a federal prison term for earlier federal convictions.
- At sentencing the trial court treated defendant as being "on parole" and, relying on MCL 768.7a(2), ordered the Michigan sentence to run consecutively to the remaining federal term.
- Defendant moved for resentencing arguing federal supervised release is not "parole" under MCL 768.7a(2); he also sought credit for time served but did not preserve that issue properly.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the consecutive-sentence order (remanded for resentencing), holding federal supervised release is not the same as parole under MCL 768.7a(2); it denied relief on the unpreserved sentence-credit claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 768.7a(2) authorizes consecutive state sentencing when the offender was on federal supervised release at the time of the later offense | MCL 768.7a(2) applies to felony committed while on "parole," and federal supervised release should be treated as parole for consecutive-sentencing purposes | Federal supervised release is distinct from parole; the statute unambiguously refers only to "parole," so it does not authorize consecutive sentencing when the prior supervision was federal supervised release | Reversed consecutive sentence and remanded for resentencing — supervised release is not "parole" under MCL 768.7a(2) |
| Whether defendant is entitled to credit for pre-sentencing custody | (not developed/preserved) | Defendant seeks credit for time served before sentencing | Denied on appeal: issue unpreserved; defendant failed to show plain error or the statutory basis (MCL 769.11b) for credit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chambers, 430 Mich 217 (consecutive sentences require statutory authority)
- Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 US 395 (explaining federal supervised release and its origin)
- People v. Holder, 483 Mich 168 (parole system and Parole Board authority in Michigan)
- People v. Idziak, 484 Mich 549 (treatment of parolee custody and jail-credit principles)
- People v. Phillips, 217 Mich App 489 (consecutive sentencing where defendant was on federal parole — did not address supervised release)
- People v. Prieskorn, 424 Mich 327 (jail-credit statute scope)