Pursuant to an agreement, defendant pleaded guilty of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny, MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305, and of being a third-time habitual offender, MCL 769.11; MSA 28.1083. He was sentenced to a term of three to thirty years of imprisonment. He appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant contends that the trial court lost jurisdiction to sentence him because the sentence was delayed for more than a year. Defendant relies on the deferred sentencing statute, MCL 771.1(2); MSA 28.1131(2), which states:
Except as provided in subsection (3), in an action in which the court may place the defendant on probation, the court may delay the imposing of sentence of the defendant for a period of not to exceed 1 year for the purpose of giving the defendant an opportunity to prove to the court his or her eligibility for probation or other leniency compatible with the ends of justice and the rehabilitation of the defendant. When the sentencing is delayed, the court shall make an order stating the reason for the delay, which order shall be entered upon the records of the court. The delay in passing sentence shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to sentence the defendant at any time during the extended periоd.
Defendant contends that the one-year period can only be exceeded in limited and unusual circumstances and after good cause is shown.
Defendant pleaded guilty on February 15, 1990. The parties began discussing sentencing at that time. However, the court decided to postpone sentencing until March 22, 1990, so that proposals for rehabilitation programs could be submitted. On March 22, 1990, the court entered an order delaying defendant’s sentence to December 13, 1990, and requiring defendant to enroll in a rehabilitation program. Defendant was discharged from that program on August 27, 1990. On October 12, 1990, defendant was arrested fоr breaking and entering and was incarcerated in the Oakland County Jail.
On December 13, 1990, a probation department representative asked the court for an adjournment because defendant’s other offense had not been resolved. When asked by the court if he wanted the delay, defendant replied, "Yes.” The court adjourned the proceeding until January 24, 1991.
On January 24, 1991, defendant explained to the court that the other case had not been resolved. The court adjourned the sentencing until February 7, 1991.
The record does not indicate what, if anything, transpired on February 7, 1991. The next record of proceedings occurred on February 28, 1991. On this date, defendant advised the court that his
The Court: You want me to postpone sentencing you until I see the оutcome of that case, is that right?
Mr. Richards: Yes sir.
The Court: Do you understand that any time running is against — cannot be used against the Prosecutor? It’s time that you’re asking me to delay a matter.
Mr. Richards: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: I’ll adjourn this to April 11th to see what happens in the сase before Judge Cooper and if there’s any reason to bring it back sooner, we can do that.
On April 2, 1991, defendant was convicted in Judge Cooper’s courtroom of breaking and entering an ocсupied dwelling and of being a fourth-time habitual offender. On April 11, 1991, the prosecutor informed the court that Judge Cooper had imposed a seven- to twenty-year sentence for the habitual offender cоnviction that was to be consecutive to the sentence the court had not yet imposed. The court stated that it was not ready to proceed because of some confusing information in the filе and because it wanted to consider the sentence imposed by Judge Cooper. Defendant acquiesced in the adjournment. On April 18, 1991, approximately fourteen months after defendant pleadеd guilty, the court imposed defendant’s sentence.
In
People v McLott,
The deferred sentencing statute is not as plainand unambiguous as defendant would have us believe. It states that the court does not lose jurisdiction to sentence if sentencing is completed within one year. It does not forthrightly state that jurisdiction is lost if for some reason, particulаrly if the reason be sound or unavoidable, sentencing is postponed beyond the year deadline. Thus, it is only inferentially that one arrives at a conclusion that in every instance jurisdiction is lost. We also note that when carefully read the statute grants a one-year delay "for the purpose of giving the defendant an opportunity to prove to the court his eligibility for probation or such other leniency аs may be compatible with the ends of justice.” Thus, the statute does not speak to whether an additional delay can be granted for some other purposes such as allowing a trial judge to recovеr from illness. Accordingly, there is room for construction of the statute. Neither logic nor precedent based upon analogous situations leads us to conclude that the Legislature intended that jurisdiction is irretrievably lost in every situation where the delay in sentencing exceeds one year. [Id. at 528-529. Emphasis in original.]
However, the panel stated that "prompt and efficient administration of justice” mandated a strict interpretation of the statute such that the one-year period could be exceeded "in only the most limited circumstances.”
Id.
at 530-531. Subsequent decisions of this Court have held that "absent good cause,” a delay of morе than a year in sentencing deprives the court of jurisdiction.
People v Boynton,
The prosecution argues that dеfendant waived the one-year limitation by requesting adjourn
Before the enactment оf the deferred sentencing statute, our Supreme Court held that a defendant’s consent to an indefinite delay in sentencing waived his right to assert that the delay resulted in a loss of jurisdiction.
In re Tinholt, 223
Mich 483, 484;
By consenting, [Tinholt] has waived the right to complain of indefinite postponement. Assuming that, though the agreed postponement was indefinite, the delay thereunder should not be unreasonable, we find, under the circumstances, no unreasonable delay. [Id.]
However, in interpreting the one-year requirement of the deferred sentencing statute, a panеl of this Court rejected the argument that defendant’s consent to adjournments constituted a waiver of the claim of loss of jurisdiction. After discussing Tinholt, the Turner panel stated:
Waiver of the right to be sentenced by consenting to a delay is meаningless. Such a consent is inherently unsound since a defendant, as a practical matter, will always opt for freedom. Furthermore, the question of retention or loss of jurisdiction should not depend solely on the consent or waiver of the defendant. [92 Mich App 489 .]
In
Dubis, supra,
another panel of this Court, following
Turner,
also rejected the argument that a
We disagree with the reasoning of Turner and Dubis. First, we find no indication in the deferred sentencing statute thаt the Legislature intended to preclude a defendant’s waiver of the one-year requirement. As discussed in McLott, the statute provides that the court does not lose jurisdiction for a one-year period. By inference, that jurisdiction may be lost when the one-year period is exceeded. McLott, supra at 529. Even Turner and Dubis recognize that the one-year period may be exceeded in the "most limited and unusual circumstances.” However, there is no support for a further inference that a defendant may not waive the one-year requirement and consent to the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of sentencing.
Secondly, we believe that the phrase "jurisdiction to sentence the defendant” in subsection 2 refers to the trial court’s jurisdiction over a particular defendant, i.e., personal jurisdiction, as opposed to the сourt’s power over a class of cases, i.e., subject-matter jurisdiction. "It is a fundamental principle that defects in personal jurisdiction may be waived, whereas subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived and may be raised at any time.”
People v Smith,
Moreover, we disagree with the statements in
Turner,
that consent to a delay is "inherently unsound” and "meaningless.” These charaсterizations of a waiver of the delay are impossible to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s holding in
Tinholt,
as recognized by another panel of this
In summаry, we are convinced that a defendant may waive the one-year requirement and consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of sentencing. Accordingly, we decline to follow Turner and Dubis to the extent that they hold that a defendant’s consent to a delay in sentencing does not constitute a waiver. 2 On the basis of the record before us, we conclude that the defendant waivеd the one-year requirement and consented to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him.
In regard to defendant’s second issue, we hold that defendant was not entitled to credit for the timе spent in the rehabilitation program before sentencing because such placement did not meet the statutory requirements for credit. MCL 769.11b; MSA 28.1083(2);
People v Whiteside,
Affirmed.
Notes
We also note that Turner and Dubis are distinguishable from the present case because the dеfendant in this case was incarcerated at the time he consented to the delay. Accordingly, defendant’s consent was not simply "opt[ing] for freedom.” Turner, supra at 489.
We note that our decision is consistent with
Tinholt,
as well as a decision of the United States Supreme Court,
Miller
v
Aderhold,