From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cobley

Supreme Court of Michigan
Oct 24, 2000
463 Mich. 893 (Mich. 2000)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

vacating a defendant's sentence because the prosecutor could not prove "that the notice of sentence enhancement was served on defendant within 21 days after the defendant was arraigned."

Summary of this case from People v. Turner
See 7 Summaries

Opinion

No. 114665.

October 24, 2000.

COA: 204155, Shiawassee CC: 96-007655-FH

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the April 20, 1999 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the trial court. On remand, the defendant's sentence, as a fourth habitual offender, shall be VACATED and the defendant resentenced because the prosecutor has not proven that the notice of sentence enhancement was served on defendant within 21 days after the defendant was arraigned. In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Summaries of

People v. Cobley

Supreme Court of Michigan
Oct 24, 2000
463 Mich. 893 (Mich. 2000)

vacating a defendant's sentence because the prosecutor could not prove "that the notice of sentence enhancement was served on defendant within 21 days after the defendant was arraigned."

Summary of this case from People v. Turner

In People v Cobley, 463 Mich. 893; 618 N.W.2d 768 (2000), our Supreme Court vacated the defendant's sentence and ordered that he be resentenced because the prosecutor failed to prove that the notice of sentence enhancement was served on the defendant within 21 days after the defendant was arraigned.

Summary of this case from People v. Nelson

In People v Cobley, 463 Mich 893; 618 NW2d 768 (2000), our Supreme Court vacated the defendant's enhanced sentence "because the prosecutor has not proven that the notice of sentence enhancement was served on defendant within 21 days after the defendant was arraigned."

Summary of this case from People v. Parrish

In Cobley, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed an unpublished opinion of this Court which held that the prosecution's failure to strictly comply with the notice statute did not require reversal because the defendant had actual notice of the prosecution's intent to seek a sentencing enhancement.

Summary of this case from People v. Howard

ordering resentencing "because the prosecutor has not proven that the notice of sentence enhancement was served on defendant within 21 days after the defendant was arraigned"

Summary of this case from People v. Grimes

In People v Cobley, 463 Mich 893 (2000), the Michigan Supreme Court vacated defendant's sentence as a fourth-offense habitual offender and ordered resentencing "because the prosecutor has not proven that the notice of sentence enhancement was served on defendant within 21 days after the defendant was arraigned."

Summary of this case from People v. Garrett

In Cobley, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the defendant needed to be resentenced "because the prosecutor has not proven that the notice of sentence enhancement was served on defendant within twenty-one days after the defendant was arraigned."

Summary of this case from People v. Muhammad
Case details for

People v. Cobley

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RYAN PATRICK…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Oct 24, 2000

Citations

463 Mich. 893 (Mich. 2000)
618 N.W.2d 768

Citing Cases

People v. Howard

People v Morales, 240 Mich App 571, 582; 618 NW2d 10 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant…

People v. Willingham

People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). The Supreme Court did issue an order in People…

17 Citing Cases