People v. Blackston
764 N.W.2d 281
Mich.
2009
Check Treatment

*1 Reports Michigan 483 986 verdict, reviewing appeal from a motion for a directed required in an is 215, (2006), only Ctr, I Hurley 220-221 can Zsigo 475 Mich v Med plaintiffs with insurer final communication conclude that defendant’s they commu- existed and that this exaggerated actual facts as then the to the extent and inaccurate information contained unfounded nication Finally, acting good I note that the longer in faith. was no that defendant extraordinarily damages in exemplary seems excessive here amount of But, any damages defendant has not raised light awarded. of the actual exemplary damages. regarding propriety of such the or amount claim 137332; App reported Mich 92. below: 280 No. Jamil v Jahan, 137627; Appeals No. 245099. Court of No. People v Blackston, my dissenting (concurring). the reasons stated in J. For Markman, (2008), Blackston, People Mich I continue to believe opinion v 481 451 in recanting excluding in the its discretion here that the trial court abused However, this not harmless. because and that the error was statements prevail, my position already did not addressed this issue and Court has agree Appeals defendant’s remain- I the of that and because with Court deny merit, ing in this Court’s decision to now are I concur issues without appeal. leave to join J. I the statement of Justice Markman. C. Kelly, 137652; Appeals Court of No. 275215. No. People v Kircher, appeal (dissenting). grant to to consider I would leave J. Markman, 324.3115(4). sentencing guidelines apply On the one to MCL the whether hand, guidelines apply specifically to listed 777.13c states that the MCL 324.3115(4), felonies, specified including in which the offense MCL applicable suggests guidelines that a conviction under the are and that 3115(4) five-year maximum sentence. On the § carries a indeterminate 324.3115(4) impose hand, a the trial court “shall” states that other five-year MCL apparently imprisonment, communicates a which term of sentence, guidelines inapplicable thereby rendering the determinate 324.3115(4) 769.34(5). Moreover, effec- pursuant whether MCL to MCL 769.34(5) tively purposes is imposes for of MCL a determinate sentence substantially by Legislature’s placed use of more definite into issue the sentences, e.g., language imposing determinate in other criminal statutes during of a (possession a firearm the commission 750.227b of MCL (the “mandatory felony) a term” that defendant “shall” be sentenced to eligible parole”); suspended” for and the defendant is “not “shall not be 791.234(6) (murder) (the 750.316(1) defendant “shall be and MCL MCL eligible parole”); by imprisonment punished for life” and is “not for MCL (the 750.543f(2) (terrorism) by imprison- punished defendant “shall” be eligibility parole”). of the substantial life for Because ment for “without incarceration, grant I leave consequences term of would for defendant’s appeal to address this issue. to join C.J., of Justice J. We the statement and Cavanagh, Kelly, Markman. 138114; Appeals Court of No. No. v Stations, Powers Post-Newsweek 288582.