People v. Howell
300 Mich. App. 638
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Howell committed offenses while on parole, including an arson incident (Aug 30, 2006), a home invasion (Jan 8, 2007), and an assault (Jan 15, 2007).
- Plea agreements dismissed some charges and set specific sentencing ranges; none addressed Howell's parole status.
- Presentence report indicated Howell was a parolee and that new sentences must run consecutively to his parole sentence.
- Initial judgments (Oct 2007) outlined concurrent and consecutive terms with jail credit actions; amendments occurred later but did not reflect parole status consistently.
- Between 2009 and 2010, the trial court amended judgments multiple times, ultimately indicating sentences were consecutive to parole, per Michigan law.
- Howell moved for relief from judgment in Mar 2010, arguing due process, plea-bargain benefits, and jail credit issues; the trial court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the correction of judgments fell under MCR 6.435(A). | Howell argues correction was improper because it altered substantive terms. | Howell contends the court erroneously amended judgments to be consecutive to parole. | Correction proper as omission under MCR 6.435(A). |
| Whether the correction violated due process or required a hearing. | Howell asserts due process required notice/hearing before correction. | Howell maintains no hearing was needed for clerical correction; plea terms not controlling. | No hearing required; corrections permissible without a hearing for clerical omissions. |
| Whether plea agreements controlled whether sentences could be consecutive to parole. | Howell argues plea terms required concurrent sentences with related cases. | Howell's parole status and statutory requirements override plea terms; plea did not address parole. | Plea agreements did not mandate concurrent sentences with parole; parole-consecutive requirement governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Holder, 483 Mich 168, 172 n 7; 767 NW2d 423 (2009) (Mich. 2009) (discusses court rule interpretation and related principles)
- People v Buie, 491 Mich 294, 304; 817 NW2d 33 (2012) (Mich. 2012) (quotes staff comment on MCR 6.435(B))
- People v Cole, 491 Mich 325, 330; 817 NW2d 497 (2012) (Mich. 2012) (discusses scope of correction and plea implications)
- People v Petit, 466 Mich 624, 632 n 9; 648 NW2d 193 (2002) (Mich. 2002) (court rule interpretation and correction principles)
- People v Morey, 461 Mich 325, 330; 603 NW2d 250 (1999) (Mich. 1999) (analogous to correction of sentences contexts)