From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Poole

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 6, 1990
463 N.W.2d 478 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

Docket No. 121298.

Decided November 6, 1990, at 9:00 A.M.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Gay Secor Hardy, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Jeffrey Caminsky, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Kim D. Johnson, for the defendant.

Before: DOCTOROFF, P.J., and GRIFFIN and REILLY, JJ.


Defendant pled guilty of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2), one count of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, one count of assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278, and to being an habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11; MSA 28.1083. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty to forty years' imprisonment on the underlying felony convictions. Those sentences were then vacated, and defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender to concurrent terms of thirty to sixty years of imprisonment. He now appeals as of right. We affirm.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court failed to articulate its reasons for the sentences imposed for the habitual offender convictions. We disagree. Our review of the record shows that the trial court adequately articulated its reasons for the sentences imposed. People v Cloes, 417 Mich. 523, 549-550; 339 N.W.2d 440 (1983). This case is different than People v Ochoa, 429 Mich. 866; 413 N.W.2d 426 (1987), and People v Livingston, 430 Mich. 899; 425 N.W.2d 92 (1988), in which no reasons were articulated for the sentences, other than the habitual offender enhancement statute. In this case, the sentencing transcript is replete with reasons for the sentences imposed for the underlying convictions. We are not persuaded that any of the objectives behind the Coles articulation requirement would be better served by remanding this case to the trial court under such circumstances. The articulation requirement was fulfilled in this case. Defendant is not entitled to resentencing.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Poole

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 6, 1990
463 N.W.2d 478 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Poole

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v POOLE

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 6, 1990

Citations

463 N.W.2d 478 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)
463 N.W.2d 478