People v. McCrady

26 Citing cases

  1. People v. Jackson

    No. 364237 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2024)

    We review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630, 635-636; 461 N.W.2d 1 (1990); People v McCrady, 213 Mich.App. 474, 483; 540 N.W.2d 718 (1995). Criminal sentences must be "proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender." Milbourn, 435 Mich. at 636.

  2. People v. Wallace

    No. 321455 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    See MCL 750.227b(1). In People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 486; 540 NW2d 718 (1995), this Court held that the defendant's sentence for a carrying a concealed weapon conviction was improperly made consecutive to his sentence for a felony-firearm conviction "[b]ecause there is no statute mandating that a sentence for a [carrying a concealed weapon] conviction run consecutively to a sentence for a felony-firearm conviction[.]" See also People v Cortez, 206 Mich App 204, 207; 520 NW2d 693 (1994) (holding that the trial court erred in making the defendant's felony-firearm sentence consecutive to his carrying a concealed weapon conviction because carrying a concealed weapon may not serve as the predicate offense for felony-firearm); People v Bonham, 182 Mich App 130, 137; 451 NW2d 530 (1989) ("Since [carrying a concealed weapon] conviction may not be the underlying felony for a felony-firearm conviction, MCL 750.227b(1), there is no statutory authority for imposing a [carrying a concealed weapon] sentence to be served consecutive to a felony-firearm se

  3. People v. Washington

    No. 319168 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015)

    People v Clark, 463 Mich 459, 464; 619 NW2d 538 (2000). In People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 486; 540 NW2d 718 (1995), this Court held that the defendant was improperly sentenced to consecutive sentences for his felony-firearm and carrying a concealed weapon convictions since there is no statute that mandates that the sentences run consecutively. See also People v Cortez, 206 Mich App 204, 206; 520 NW2d 693 (1994) (holding that the defendant's sentence for carrying a concealed weapon could not run consecutive to his sentence for felony-firearm since carrying a concealed weapon cannot be the underlying offense for felony-firearm).

  4. People v. Hamilton

    465 Mich. 526 (Mich. 2002)   Cited 30 times
    In Hamilton, the defendant had moved for dismissal of a drunk driving charge because he was arrested by an officer acting outside of his jurisdiction.

    Rather, we believe that the language supports the analysis of several Court of Appeals decisions that the statute was intended, not to create a new right of criminal defendants to exclusion of evidence, but rather to "protect the rights and autonomy of local governments" in the area of law enforcement. See People v Clark, 181 Mich. App. 577, 581; 450 N.W.2d 75 (1989); People v McCrady, 213 Mich. App. 474, 480-481; 540 N.W.2d 718 (1995). Clearly, Officer Lockhart acted here without statutory authority.

  5. People v. Grayson

    No. 343596 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 20, 2021)

    The trial court also awarded defendant 666 days of credit for time served for the felony-firearm sentence and zero days of credit for both the felon-in-possession and CCW sentences. On appeal, defendant raised the issue that his sentences for CCW and felony-firearm should be served concurrently, and that he should receive 666 days of jail credit for time served for both the CCW and felony-firearm sentences, pursuant to People v Wyatt, 470 Mich. 878; 683 N.W.2d 143 (2004), and People v McCrady, 213 Mich.App. 474, 486; 540 N.W.2d 718 (1995), which established that sentences for CCW and felony-firearm must run concurrently. Defendant moved in this Court for remand on this issue.

  6. People v. Webb

    No. 346408 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2020)

    "Because there is no statute mandating that a sentence for a CCW conviction run consecutively to a sentence for a felony-firearm conviction, the sentence should run concurrently." People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 486; 540 NW2d 718 (1995). Here, the predicate felonies for defendant's felony-firearm convictions were felon in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of ammunition.

  7. People v. Grayson

    No. 343596 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2020)

    The trial court also awarded defendant 666 days of credit for time served for the felony-firearm sentence and zero days of credit for both the felon-in-possession and CCW sentences. On appeal, defendant raised the issue that his sentences for CCW and felony-firearm should be served concurrently, and that he should receive 666 days of jail credit for time served for both the CCW and felony-firearm sentences, pursuant to People v Wyatt, 470 Mich 878; 683 NW2d 143 (2004), and People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 486; 540 NW2d 718 (1995), which established that sentences for CCW and felony-firearm must run concurrently. Defendant moved in this Court for remand on this issue.

  8. People v. Evans

    No. 337831 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2018)

    This Court has also stated that "[b]ecause there is no statute mandating that a sentence for a CCW conviction run consecutively to a sentence for a felony-firearm conviction, the sentence should run concurrently." People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 486; 540 NW2d 718 (1995). As a result, defendant's sentence for CCW cannot run consecutively to his sentence for felony-firearm. It does not appear from the record that the trial court misspoke, but rather, that it misunderstood the law regarding consecutive sentencing for felony-firearm and CCW offenses.

  9. People v. Beal

    No. 326981 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2016)

    In other words, "[b]ecause there is no statute mandating that a sentence for a CCW conviction run consecutively to a sentence for a felony-firearm conviction, the sentence should run concurrently." People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 486; 540 NW2d 718, 724 (1995). Here, defendant has shown that the trial court plainly erred by ordering his felony-firearm sentence to be consecutive to his CCW sentence.

  10. People v. Arellano

    No. 322886 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Our review of defendant's accompanying claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is limited to mistakes apparent on the record. People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 478-479; 540 NW2d 718 (1995). III. ANALYSIS