Opinion
367871
11-13-2023
People of Michigan v. Brad Steven Fischer
LC Nos. 2022-006464-FH; 2022-006494-FH 2022-006510-FH; 2023-006554-FH
Kathleen A. Feeney Presiding Judge Douglas B. Shapiro Christopher P. Yates Judges.
ORDER
Kathleen A. Feeney Presiding Judge.
The motion to remand is GRANTED. On remand, the trial court shall comply with People v Norfleet, 317 Mich.App. 649, 665; 897 N.W.2d 195 (2016) and articulate on the record its reasons for imposing multiple consecutive sentences. As Norfleet instructs, "a trial court may not impose multiple consecutive sentences as a single act of discretion nor explain them as such. The decision regarding each consecutive sentence is its own discretionary act and must be separately justified on the record. The statute [MCL 333.7401(3)] clearly provides that a discretionary decision must be made as to each sentence and not to them all as a group. Moreover, this is in accordance with the Supreme Court's statements that Michigan has a 'clear preference for concurrent sentencing' and that the '[i]mposition of a consecutive sentence is strong medicine.' People v Chambers, 430 Mich. 217, 229, 231; 421 N.W.2d 903 (1988) (quotation marks and citation omitted)."
The application for leave to appeal is DENIED based upon the order to remand.