Opinion
No. 131108.
September 29, 2006.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals No. 268866.
Leave to Appeal Denied September 29, 2006.
I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. In her application for leave to appeal, defendant argued that the extent of the sentencing court's upward departure from the sentencing guidelines was an abuse of discretion. Defendant did not raise the issue whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 (2004), applied to Michigan's intermediate sentencing guidelines scheme. MCL 769.34(4)(a). Generally, appeals are limited to those issues raised in the application for leave to appeal, MCR 7.302(G)(4), and arguments not raised and preserved for review are deemed waived. People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643 (1994).
CORRIGAN, J. I join the statement of Justice YOUNG.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would grant leave to appeal.
I dissent and would instead remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. This case squarely raises the question whether, and to what extent, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 (2004), applies to Michigan's intermediate sentencing guidelines scheme. MCL 769.34(4)(a). The trial court based its sentencing departure on facts that were not part of defendant's criminal history, admitted by defendant, or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, this case presents an appropriate vehicle for determining whether, when the guidelines call for an intermediate sanction, Blakely precludes the imposition of a prison sentence based on such other facts.