Opinion
No. 136903.
October 31, 2008.
Court of Appeals No. 285155.
Leave to Appeal Denied October 31, 2008.
I write separately only to reiterate the concerns expressed in my dissenting statement in People v Wright, 474 Mich 1138 (2006). In Wright, I stated that parolees are entitled to a determination "regarding how much, if any, additional time must be served for the parole violation." Id. at 1140. Currently, parolees receive no such determination and remain in jail for an indeterminate length of time for their parole violation until they are sentenced for the newly committed crime. The result is that similarly situated parolees often receive an unequal amount of additional time on the basis of "the fortuity of how long it takes the criminal justice system to proceed to a defendant's final sentencing." Id.
Within the past two years, this Court has received at least 60 applications for leave to appeal on this issue. Regardless of the eventual outcome in this Court, resolving this issue would provide a significant benefit to the operations of our state's legal system, and would provide important guidance for parole violators, trial judges, and the Department of Corrections. I believe it is long past time for the Court to conclusively resolve this question.
CAVANAGH, J. I join the statement of Justice MARKMAN.
KELLY, J. I would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in my dissenting statement in People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2006).