*1 PEOPLE v COMSTOCK 7,1984, Sеptember Lansing. No. 75997. Submitted Docket at —Decided 20, 1984. November convicted, contendere, Robert A. Comstock was on his of nolo nongame Muskegon of Circuit Court, Daniels, R. Max At the time of the commission of the felony charge against offense there was a defendant for which subsequently judge he was convicted. The trial ordered the consecutively, though sentences to be served even the trans- of a firearm in a area offense is labeled a appealed. misdemeanor in the Penal Code. Defendant Held: Code Criminal Procedure authorizes sen- and, person felony tences where a has been with a pending disposition charge, of the commits a felony. purposes For оf the Code of Criminal any Procedure a is offense for which the maximum penalty may greater imprisоnment be than one includes Kaufman, J., dissented, believing provision N. J. that the consecutive sentences in the Code of Criminal Procedure does apply to this situation. He would reverse.
Opinion of the Court Concurrent Sentences. may completion A sentence not be to commence at thе statutory authority. the absence of — Sentencing — 2. Criminal Law The Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes consecutive sentences and, person where a has been felony; purposes which is a of the Code of Criminal Proce- any penalty offense for which the maximum References for Points in Headnotes 2d, 21 Am Jur 552. [1-3] [2, Law § 2d, 21 Am Jur 29. 3] Criminal Law §§ 1984] greater imprisonment and includes (MCL 761.1[g], 28.843[g], misdemeanors 28.1030[2]). *2 Sentencing — Legislature granted authority
The for consecutive sentences for pending disposition crimes prior called felonies committed charges; authority subsequent the does not to extend regardless described as misdemeanors potential their mаximum sentence. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Warner, General, Gerald D. Solicitor Pros- Gibbs, and Gerald ecuting W. Attorney, Chief Prosecuting people. Trial for Attorney, Douglas M. Hughes, for on appeal. defendant C.J., Kelly Before: and M. J. and N. J. Danhof, JJ. Kaufman,* pled Defendant no contest to trans- Pеr Curiam. a nongame
750.227c; MSA He was sentenced to a term from appeals one to two and yеars as of right. sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering that defendant’s sentence be served to consecutively previ- ously imposed. find no error.
Consecutive sentеncing only allowed where v Wake specifically authorized by statute. ford, 68 (1983); Peo ple Sawyer, 531, (1981); Gallagher, 440 In re Carey, Both prosecution * Appeals Judge, sitting Appeals Former Court of the Court of on assignment. sentencing
the trial court relied on the consecutive imposition authority statute as for the of consecu- tive in this does case. dispute that, at the time he committed the instant pеnding against offense, there was him a charge for which he was later convicted.
Michigan’s pro- vides: person, "When a who has been and subsequent felony, upon conviction of acceptаnce offense or guilty, of a ill,
guilty mentally but or nolo contendere for the offense, following apply: shall "(a) imposed The sentences prior conviction of the subsequent offense, other than a major offense, controlled substance may run consecu- tively. "(b) The sentences prior сonviction of the *3 offense which ais major controlled substance offense shall run consecu-
tively.” MCL MSA argues that he was of a mis- convicted required demeanor rather than a the statute. as under disagree.
While it is true that crime of area is described as a two- Michigan misdemeanor offensе under seq.; seq., Code, Penal MCL 750.1 et MSA 28.191 et two-year misdemeanors are treated as felonies for рurposes Procedure, the Code of MCL seq. 760.1 et The Code of Criminal Procedure defines as: pеnal violation of law of "[A] this state for which offender, conviction, upon punished by
death or by imprisоnment year, 1 more than or an People 1984], 279 by Kaufman, J. N. expressly designated by felony.” law to be a 28.843(g). 761.1(g); Inasmuch as the consecutive statute is Procedure, enacted under the Code of Criminal we find that tо in felony referred that statute includes position supported
Our
the decisions of this
holding
Court
the term
аs used in the
provisions
habitual offender
of the Code of Crimi-
seq.;
MCL 769.10 et
MSA 28.1082 et
Procedure,
nal
seq.,
punishablе
includes offenses
more
imprisonment,
one
such as
misde-
McGill,
People
v
131
App
meanors. See
Mich
People DeLong,
v
477-478;
(1984);
346
572
People
v
1;
(1983);
339
App
Mich
NW2d 659
Cavanaugh,
App
Rice,
v
(1983);
App 1;
300 NW2d
grounds
rev’d on other
(1980),
Rosecrants,
The trial court in this case did not err in order- ing that defendant’s sentence be served consecu- tively to a imposed. sentence previously (dissenting). respectfully dissent.
The word in the *4 "felony”, think meant of- they called felonies. Defendant’s misdemeanor, fense is described as a so the consec- utive govern. statute doesn’t