Summary
In People v Brown, 495 Mich. 962, 963 (2014), our Supreme Court vacated the trial court's imposition of seven consecutive sentences for CSC-I because, while the assaults occurred over 10 days, only "three sexual penetrations that resulted in those convictions ar[ose] from the same transaction.
Summary of this case from People v. BaldehOpinion
Docket No. 147759. COA No. 308510.
2014-03-26
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Tommy BROWN, Defendant–Appellant.
Prior report: Mich.App., 2013 WL 3942486.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 30, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentences imposed by the Wayne Circuit Court for the defendant's first-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions, and we REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court imposed an invalid sentence when it imposed seven consecutive sentences for the defendant's seven convictions of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Pursuant to MCL 750.520b(3), “The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed under this section to be served consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for any other criminal offense arising from the same transaction.” Having reviewed the record, we agree with the trial prosecutor who argued at sentencing that the trial court had discretion to impose consecutive sentences for at most three of the defendant's first-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions, because the three sexual penetrations that resulted in those convictions “ar[ose] from the same transaction.” That is, the three sexual penetrations “grew out of a continuous time sequence” and had “a connective relationship that was more than incidental.” People v. Ryan, 295 Mich.App. 388, 402–403, 819 N.W.2d 55 (2012). On remand, the trial court shall resentence the defendant in accordance with MCL 750.520b(3). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.