People of State v. Peltola
| Decision Date | 14 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 140524. |
| Citation | 489 Mich. 174,803 N.W.2d 140 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Drew James PELTOLA, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Joel D. McGormley, Assistant Attorney General, and Stephanie S. Brule, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.State Appellate Defender (by Jacqueline J. McCann) for defendant.
This case presents the question whether scoring prior record variables (PRVs) when calculating a defendant's recommended minimum sentence range under the statutory sentencing guidelines is improper when a defendant's minimum and maximum sentences may be enhanced pursuant to MCL 333.7413(2). The sentence enhancement in MCL 333.7413(2) falls under the purview of MCL 777.21(4), and, therefore, the answer necessarily turns on the language of MCL 777.21, which sets forth the instructions for calculating a defendant's minimum sentence range. Reading all the provisions of this statute together, and thus giving effect to the Legislature's stated intent, we hold that MCL 777.21 requires the scoring of the PRVs when MCL 333.7413(2) is applicable. Accordingly, we affirm defendant's sentences.
A jury convicted defendant of delivery of less than 50 grams of heroin 1 and conspiracy to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin.2 The trial court scored the PRVs and the relevant offense variables (OVs), calculating defendant's minimum sentence range at 5 to 23 months in prison with a statutory maximum of 20 years. Because defendant had a prior conviction for a controlled substance offense, the trial court applied the sentence enhancement in MCL 333.7413(2).3 The trial court doubled both the minimum and maximum sentences for each conviction and sentenced defendant within the enhanced guidelines range to concurrent terms of 46 months to 40 years' imprisonment.
Defendant appealed as of right his convictions and sentences, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam.4 In particular, defendant challenged the enhancement of his minimum sentences under MCL 333.7413(2). While defendant's appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, we issued People v. Lowe, 484 Mich. 718, 773 N.W.2d 1 (2009), holding that when MCL 333.7413(2) is applicable, it authorizes a court to enhance both a defendant's minimum and maximum sentences. Relying on Lowe, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant's challenge to his sentences.
Defendant subsequently moved for reconsideration, recognizing the holding in Lowe, but arguing that additional language from Lowe indicated that PRVs should not be scored if a defendant's sentence may be enhanced under MCL 333.7413(2). The Court of Appeals denied defendant's motion for reconsideration without further comment.5
Defendant sought leave to appeal in this Court through counsel in the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO) and by filing a separate application in propria persona. We directed the prosecuting attorney to answer the application for leave filed by SADO on defendant's behalf.6 After receiving the prosecutor's answer, we denied the application that had been filed in propria persona.7 With respect to the application filed by SADO, we scheduled oral argument, instructing the parties to address whether the scoring of PRVs is improper when a defendant's minimum and maximum sentences may be doubled pursuant to MCL 333.7413(2).8
We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.9
The question here is whether the Legislature intended that a court score the PRVs when calculating the minimum sentence range for an offender whose sentence may be enhanced under MCL 333.7413(2).10 MCL 777.21, which instructs on the calculation of the minimum sentence range, provides:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for an offense enumerated in part 2 of this chapter [MCL 777.11 through MCL 777.19], determine the recommended minimum sentence range as follows:
(a) Find the offense category for the offense from part 2 of this chapter. From [MCL 777.22], determine the offense variables to be scored for that offense category and score only those offense variables for the offender as provided in part 4 of this chapter [MCL 777.31 through MCL 777.49a]. Total those points to determine the offender's offense variable level.
(b) Score all prior record variables for the offender as provided in part 5 of this chapter [MCL 777.50 through MCL 777.57]. Total those points to determine the offender's prior record variable level.
(c) Find the offense class for the offense from part 2 of this chapter. Using the sentencing grid for that offense class in part 6 of this chapter [MCL 777.61 through MCL 777.69], determine the recommended minimum sentence range from the intersection of the offender's offense variable level and prior record variable level. The recommended minimum sentence within a sentencing grid is shown as a range of months or life.
(2) If the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, subject to [MCL 771.14], score each offense as provided in this part [MCL 777.21 through MCL 777.22].
(3) If the offender is being sentenced under [MCL 769.10, MCL 769.11, or MCL 769.12], determine the offense category, offense class, offense variable level, and prior record variable level based on the underlying offense. To determine the recommended minimum sentence range, increase the upper limit of the recommended minimum sentence range determined under part 6 for the underlying offense as follows:
(a) If the offender is being sentenced for a second felony, 25%.
(b) If the offender is being sentenced for a third felony, 50%.
(c) If the offender is being sentenced for a fourth or subsequent felony, 100%.
(4) If the offender is being sentenced for a violation described in [MCL 777.18], both of the following apply:
(a) Determine the offense variable level by scoring the offense variables for the underlying offense and any additional offense variables for the offense category indicated in [MCL 777.18].
(b) Determine the offense class based on the underlying offense. If there are multiple underlying felony offenses, the offense class is the same as that of the underlying felony offense with the highest crime class. If there are multiple underlying offenses but only 1 is a felony, the offense class is the same as that of the underlying felony offense. If no underlying offense is a felony, the offense class is G.
(5) If the offender is being sentenced for an attempted felony described in [MCL 777.19], determine the offense variable level and prior record variable level based on the underlying attempted offense.
Our overriding goal for interpreting a statute is to determine and give effect to the Legislature's intent.11 The most reliable indicator of the Legislature's intent is the words in the statute.12 We interpret those words in light of their ordinary meaning and their context within the statute and read them harmoniously to give effect to the statute as a whole.13 Moreover, “every word should be given meaning, and we should avoid a construction that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” 14 If the statutory language is unambiguous, no further judicial construction is required or permitted because we presume the Legislature intended the meaning that it plainly expressed. 15
MCL 777.21(1) sets forth the general rule for determining a defendant's minimum sentence range, while subsections (2) through (5) set forth exceptions to the general rule and additional explanations regarding how the sentencing guidelines are applied to various specific classes of defendants and offenses. Reading § 21(1) as the general rule is supported by the clear language of that subsection, which begins by stating, “Except as otherwise provided in this section, ... determine the recommended minimum sentence range as follows [.]” The minimum sentence range is thus determined by following the instructions in § 21(1) unless one of the other subsections applies and provides an instruction that is inconsistent with the language in § 21(1).
The Legislature's use of “[e]xcept as otherwise provided” does not mean that when one of the other subsections is applicable, § 21(1) is entirely inapplicable. Rather, giving effect to the statute as a whole, § 21(1) is inapplicable only to the extent that one of the other subsections is inconsistent with an instruction in it.16 For the purposes of this case, § 21(1)(b) instructs that a court “[s]core all prior record variables for the offender....” The general rule applicable in all cases is thus to score the PRVs unless the language in another subsection of the statute directs otherwise.
In this case, the only other subsection relevant to the calculation of defendant's recommended minimum sentence range was § 21(4), which applies to violations “described in section 18 of this chapter....” Section 18 of chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to MCL 777.18, which includes subsequent controlled substance violations under MCL 333.7413(2).17 As a result, the determination of defendant's minimum sentence range was also subject to the instructions in MCL 777.21(4). We must therefore consider the interplay between MCL 777.21(1) and MCL 777.21(4).
When applicable, § 21(4) provides additional rules relating to the scoring of OVs and the determination of the offense class of the sentencing offense. These instructions replace the OV and offense class directives in § 21(1)(a) and (c) 18 with the directives in § 21(4)(a) and (b). In particular, § 21(4) directs a court to determine the OV level by scoring the OVs for the underlying offense and any additional OVs for the offense category indicated in § 18. It also directs a court to determine the offense class using the underlying offense, while specifying that if there are multiple underlying felony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rott v. Rott
...discussion of this limitation is unnecessary to its decision, and it is therefore nonbinding dicta. See People v. Peltola , 489 Mich. 174, 190 n. 32, 803 N.W.2d 140 (2011).5 I question, too, whether this limitation accurately captures a common characteristic among all the enumerated items. ......
-
People v. Bosca
...To read the provision otherwise would render certain parts of its language surplusage, which is not permitted. People v. Peltola, 489 Mich. 174, 181, 803 N.W.2d 140 (2011). Moreover, the term "specified offense against a minor" is defined to mean "an offense against a minor that involves an......
-
Emergency Dep't Physicians P.C. v. United Healthcare, Inc.
...and their context within the statute and read them harmoniously to give effect to the statute as a whole." People v. Peltola , 489 Mich. 174, 181, 803 N.W.2d 140 (2011). The Court must also consider "the placement of the critical language in the statutory scheme." Johnson v. Recca , 492 Mic......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Seils
...statements that are unnecessary to determine the case at hand and, thus, ‘lack the force of an adjudication.’ " People v. Peltola, 489 Mich. 174, 190 n. 32, 803 N.W.2d 140 (2011) (citation omitted).8 An issue is moot when a judgment, if entered, cannot have any practical legal effect on the......