People v. Kirkland
| Decision Date | 16 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 104297 |
| Citation | 432 N.W.2d 422,172 Mich.App. 735 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy KIRKLAND, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Nathan T. Fairchild, Pros. Atty., for the People.
Mark A. Trusock, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before DANHOF, C.J., and KELLY and BEASLEY, JJ.
Defendant pled guilty to breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. M.C.L. Sec. 750.110; M.S.A. Sec. 28.305. When defendant committed this crime in November of 1980, he was currently a federal inmate at a Community Treatment Center program in Detroit. At sentencing, the trial judge noted that defendant was an inmate when he committed the breaking and entering and sentenced him to 3-1/2 to 10 years, to be served consecutively to his previous federal sentence. We affirm this sentence.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence to be served consecutively to, rather than concurrently with, his federal sentence. We disagree.
Our Supreme Court has held:
"[A] sentence may not be imposed to commence at the completion or expiration of Federal sentence, in the absence of statutory authority." In re Carey, 372 Mich. 378, 381, 126 N.W.2d 727 (1964).
The consecutive sentencing statute, M.C.L. Sec. 768.7a(1); M.S.A. Sec. 28.1030(1)(1), provides:
The purpose of this statute is to deter persons convicted of one crime from committing other crimes by removing the security of concurrent sentencing. People v. Sheridan, 141 Mich.App. 770, 774, 367 N.W.2d 450 (1985). The consecutive sentencing statute should be construed liberally in order to achieve the deterrent effect intended by the Legislature. People v. Mandell, 166 Mich.App. 620, 622, 420 N.W.2d 834 (1987). Thus, the words "incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution" have been liberally construed to apply to inmates who are participating in community corrections...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Spann
...to achieve its deterrent effect. Cf. People v. Phillips, 217 Mich.App. 489, 499-500, 552 N.W.2d 487 (1996), and People v. Kirkland, 172 Mich. App. 735, 737, 432 N.W.2d 422 (1988) (construing the consecutive sentencing provisions of M.C.L. § 768.7a). Interpreting subsection 7401(3) to impose......
-
People v. Phillips
...the instant offenses, the prosecutor argues this statute applies and a consecutive sentence was mandated. In People v. Kirkland, 172 Mich.App. 735, 736-737, 432 N.W.2d 422 (1988), a panel of this Court noted that the purpose of the consecutive sentencing statute is to deter persons convicte......
-
People v. Weatherford
...the deterrent effect intended by the Legislature. People v. Smith, 423 Mich. 427, 442, 378 N.W.2d 384 (1985); People v. Kirkland, 172 Mich.App. 735, 737, 432 N.W.2d 422 (1988). In view of the purpose of the statute, the legislative intent would be abrogated by allowing inmates to be taken o......
-
People v. Parker, 330898
...liberally in order to achieve the deterrent 319 Mich.App. 415effect intended by the Legislature.’ " Id ., quoting People v. Kirkland , 172 Mich.App. 735, 737, 432 N.W.2d 422 (1988). A trial court may only impose a consecutive sentence if specifically authorized by statute. People v. Lee , 2......