People v. Peltola
489 Mich. 174
| Mich. | 2011Background
- Defendant convicted of delivery of less than 50 grams of heroin and conspiracy to deliver; PRVs and OVs scored to determine minimum sentence range (5–23 months) with max 20 years.
- MCL 333.7413(2) doubles minimum and maximum sentences when a prior controlled substance offense exists.
- Judge Lowe (2009) held §333.7413(2) may double both minimum and maximum sentences, influencing appellate arguments.
- Post-Lowe, defendant argued PRVs should not be scored when §333.7413(2) applies; Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.
- This Court interpreted §777.21 and §777.18 together to determine how PRVs are scored under §21(1) and §21(4) when §18 offenses apply.
- Court ultimately held PRVs must be scored even when sentence may be enhanced under §333.7413(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRVs must be scored when §333.7413(2) applies | Lowe suggested no PRV scoring under §21(4) when §18 applies | PRVs should not be scored under §21(4) when enhancements apply | PRVs must be scored; §21(4) does not displace §21(1)'s PRV rule |
| Interplay between §21(1) and §21(4) in calculating minimum range | PRV scoring remains the general rule across §21(1) and §21(4) | §21(4) modifies OV/OC determination but not PRVs | General PRV rule remains; §21(4) clarifies OV/OC but does not negate PRV scoring |
| Effect of 2006 amendments to §21(4) on PRVs | Amendments clarified OV/OC but did not remove PRVs | Amendments imply no PRV scoring under §21(4) | Amendments did not bar PRV scoring; no exclusive language removing PRVs |
| Role of Lowe in interpreting PRV scoring post-2006 amendments | Lowe is nonbinding obiter on PRV scoring when §21(4) applies | Lowe dictates no PRV scoring under §21(4) | Majority clarifies Lowe's statements are limited to its specific issue; PRVs still scored |
| Impact on sentencing ranges if PRVs are correctly scored | Scored PRVs yield ranges aligning with recidivist punishment goals | Doubling under §333.7413(2) might exceed guidelines range | Defendant's sentences affirmed with PRVs scored and §333.7413(2) applied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lowe, 484 Mich 718 (2009) (held §333.7413(2) can double minimum and maximum sentences; discusses PRVs relevance)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006) (discusses sentencing guidelines and PRV impact)
- Lowe, 484 Mich at 729-730, 484 Mich 718 (2009) (clarifies Lowe dissent context on PRV scoring under §21(4))
- Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230 (1999) (principles on interpreting statutes and exceptions)
- Russello v United States, 464 US 16 (1983) (presumption of intentional legislative drafting when language differs across sections)
- Farrington v Total Petroleum, Inc., 442 Mich 201 (1993) (statutory interpretation guidance cited by Court)
- MCL 777.21, - (-) (statutory framework for calculating minimum sentence range)