People v. Adams
| Decision Date | 20 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | 94808,No. 125921,Nos. 94648,s. 94648,125921 |
| Citation | 441 Mich. 916,497 N.W.2d 182 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George ADAMS, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant. COA |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
On order of the Court, the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we MODIFY the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Since no determination has been made that the sentence is invalid, a resentencing is not required. In re Dana Jenkins, 438 Mich. 364, 475 N.W.2d 279 (1991). On remand, the Oakland Circuit Court shall first determine, after reconsideration in light of People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630, 461 N.W.2d 1 (1990), whether a resentencing is appropriate. If it determines that a resentencing is appropriate, it shall then obtain the defendant's presence for that purpose. If it determines that a resentencing is not appropriate, its order shall contain an explanation of its decision. The defendant's delayed application for leave to appeal is also considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
[Prior report: 195 Mich.App. 267, 489 N.W.2d 192.]
MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, C.J., would grant the defendant's application for leave to appeal.
BOYLE, J., states as follows:
I would grant the prosecution's application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals vacation of the sentence or reverse by order. The trial judge was aware of the guidelines and articulated the reasons why he felt they were insufficient to protect the public and punish the offender. Although it appears that the defendant did not have an extensive prior record, he had committed what was described as a nearly identical abduction rape and armed robbery a month prior to this offense. He also exceeded the maximum offense variable level in his use of a weapon, excessive terrorism, abduction of the victim, exploitation of vulnerability, multiple penetrations, and psychological injury to the victim. In short, this defendant's criminal activity was off the offense variable grid, and the guidelines therefore failed to reflect the seriousness of the crime. The trial court found that the defendant was exceptionally dangerous, and that the sentence was not disproportional. If the guidelines mandate no more than a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coy
...acceptance in the scientific community." People v. Adams, 195 Mich.App. 267, 269, 489 N.W.2d 192, (1992), mod on other grounds 441 Mich. 916, 497 N.W.2d 182 (1993). When demonstrating that there is general scientific recognition of novel scientific techniques or principles, it is necessary ......
-
People v. Leonard, Docket Nos. 178121
...of the expert witnesses and because People v. Adams, 195 Mich.App. 267, 489 N.W.2d 192 (1992), modified on other grounds, 441 Mich. 916, 497 N.W.2d 182 (1993), was wrongly decided. The trial court denied defendant's Defendant and Schippers testified at trial, and the DNA expert testimony wa......
-
People v. Lee
...DNA evidence is admissible in People v. Adams, 195 Mich.App. 267, 489 N.W.2d 192 (1992), modified in part on other grounds 441 Mich. 916, 497 N.W.2d 182 (1993), under the Davis- Frye rule, 16 this case involves a significantly different method of DNA testing than was addressed in Adams. In ......
-
State v. Harvey
...and statistical conclusions drawn from it went to weight, not admissibility, of evidence), modified in part on other grounds, 441 Mich. 916, 497 N.W.2d 182 (1993); State v. Copeland, 130 Wash.2d 244, 922 P.2d 1304, 1320-21 (1996) (holding that questions regarding size of FBI's population da......