Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Docket No. 47845.

Attorney(S)

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, George B. Mullison, Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Rasdale, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. John A. Lydick, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant on appeal.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion: PEOPLE v DORSEY, Docket No. 47845 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 1981)

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant pleaded guilty to uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249; MSA 28.446, and was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 to 14 years. He appealed as of right, raising two claims of error arising from his sentencing. The opinion addresses (1) the trial court's failure or refusal to consider a codefendant's sentence when sentencing Mr. Dorsey, and (2) the trial court's failure to credit defendant with time spent in custody in the State of Washington while he awaited extradition to Michigan.

Relevant chronology included in the record: the offense occurred on October 12, 1976; defendant was arraigned November 22, 1976, and held in the Bay County jail; defendant escaped about December 8, 1976, and remained at large until about January 18, 1978, when Washington authorities notified Bay County that defendant was in custody on unrelated Washington charges. On April 24, 1978, defendant was convicted in Washington and on July 17, 1978 began serving his Washington sentence. He remained in the Washington State Penitentiary until returned to Michigan under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (MCL 780.601 et seq.; MSA 4.147(1) et seq.) on November 20, 1978.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred by failing or refusing to consider a codefendant's sentence when sentencing defendant.
Whether defendant is entitled to credit against his Michigan sentence for time spent in custody in Washington from January 18, 1978, to July 17, 1978, while awaiting extradition to Michigan.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

That the trial court should have considered a codefendant's sentence when imposing his sentence.
That he should be credited with the time spent in custody in Washington from January 18, 1978, to July 17, 1978, while awaiting extradition to Michigan.

Prosecution's Arguments

The prosecutor disputed defendant's entitlement to credit for the Washington custody period, but did not dispute the amount of time requested.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
People v Lee, 391 Mich. 618, 635; 218 N.W.2d 655 (1974)	Michigan policy favoring individualized punishment for every defendant.	Used to support the proposition that one codefendant's sentence need not affect another's sentencing.
People v McFarlin, 389 Mich. 557, 574; 208 N.W.2d 504 (1973)	Reinforces the policy of individualized punishment.	Cited alongside People v Lee to justify that sentences need not be aligned between codefendants.
People v Armstrong, 99 Mich. App. 137, 140; 297 N.W.2d 637 (1980)	Appellate court lacks authority to disturb a sentence that is within the statutory minimum and maximum bounds for the crime.	Applied to affirm the sentence because it fell within the statutory range.
People v Havey, 11 Mich. App. 69, 81-83; 160 N.W.2d 629 (1968), lv den 381 Mich. 756 (1968)	Held that a defendant should be credited with time spent in another state while awaiting extradition to Michigan; based in part on a favorable interpretation of MCL 769.11b; MSA 28.1083(2).	Relied upon as precedent supporting credit for out-of-state custody time spent awaiting extradition.
Brinson v Genesee Circuit Judge, 403 Mich. 676, 686-687; 272 N.W.2d 513 (1978), reh den 406 Mich. 1119 (1979)	Michigan Supreme Court cited Havey and credited defendant with time spent in Pennsylvania while awaiting extradition to Michigan.	Used as authority, with Havey, to grant credit for time spent in custody out-of-state while awaiting extradition.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

On the first issue, the court reasoned from Michigan's established policy favoring individualized punishment (People v Lee; People v McFarlin) and explained that there is no requirement that one codefendant's sentence affect another's. Because defendant's sentence was within the statutory minimum and maximum for the offense, the court concluded it had no authority to disturb that sentence on appeal (People v Armstrong).

On the second issue, the court reviewed the factual timeline showing defendant was in Washington custody beginning January 18, 1978, that Washington authorities were aware of the Michigan charges as of that date, and that defendant began serving a Washington sentence on July 17, 1978. The court examined precedent (People v Havey and Brinson v Genesee Circuit Judge) that authorized crediting time spent in another jurisdiction while awaiting extradition to Michigan. The court concluded that, although the defendant in this case was held in Washington on Washington charges, the knowledge by Washington authorities of the Michigan charges as of January 18, 1978, meant the defendant should receive credit for the period from January 18, 1978, to July 17, 1978. The court thus ordered a 181-day credit, citing GCR 1963, 865.1(7).

Holding and Implications

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

Holding: The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence except that it modified the judgment to order that defendant be credited with 181 days for the period January 18, 1978, to July 17, 1978, spent in custody in Washington while awaiting extradition.

Implications: The direct effect is that defendant's sentence remains within the original 7-to-14-year term but is reduced by the 181 days' credit ordered. The opinion applies existing precedent (Havey; Brinson) to grant extradition-related credit and relies on Lee, McFarlin, and Armstrong for sentencing principles; it does not announce a new rule of law beyond those applications.

Show full summary ...

PEOPLE v DORSEY

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was plea-convicted of uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249; MSA 28.446. He was sentenced to from 7 to 14 years imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right.

Both of defendant's claims of error arise from his sentencing. The first issue questions the trial court's failure or refusal to consider a codefendant's sentence when sentencing Mr. Dorsey.

Michigan policy favors individualized punishment for every defendant. People v Lee, 391 Mich. 618, 635; 218 N.W.2d 655 (1974), People v McFarlin, 389 Mich. 557, 574; 208 N.W.2d 504 (1973). There is no requirement that one codefendant's sentence should in any way affect the sentence of another codefendant. Because the sentence imposed was "within the minimum and maximum bounds for the crime to which [defendant] pled guilty", we have no authority to disturb it on appeal. People v Armstrong, 99 Mich. App. 137, 140; 297 N.W.2d 637 (1980).

Defendant's second claim of error asserts that the trial court erred in failing to credit defendant with time spent in custody in the State of Washington while he was awaiting extradition to Michigan.

The within offense occurred on October 12, 1976. After defendant was arraigned on November 22, 1976, he was held in custody in the Bay County jail. On or about December 8, 1976, defendant escaped from the jail. He remained at large, to the knowledge of the Bay County officials, until on or about January 18, 1978. On that date, authorities in the State of Washington notified Bay County that defendant was in custody on unrelated charges. On April 24, 1978, defendant was convicted of such charges in Washington, and, on July 17, 1978, he began serving his sentence at the Washington State Penitentiary. He remained in that penitentiary until he was returned to Michigan under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, MCL 780.601 et seq.; MSA 4.147(1) et seq., on November 20, 1978.

Defendant's argument on appeal is that he should have been credited with the time spent in custody in Washington from January 18, 1978, to July 17, 1978. The prosecutor disputes defendant's entitlement to this credit, but not the amount of time requested.

In People v Havey, 11 Mich. App. 69, 81-83; 160 N.W.2d 629 (1968), lv den 381 Mich. 756 (1968), this Court ruled that a defendant should be credited with time spent in Oregon while he was awaiting extradition to Michigan. The primary basis for this ruling was that credit should be granted under MCL 769.11b; MSA 28.1083(2), if that provision were interpreted to defendant's benefit. The Michigan Supreme Court cited the Havey ruling in Brinson v Genesee Circuit Judge, 403 Mich. 676, 686-687; 272 N.W.2d 513 (1978), reh den 406 Mich. 1119 (1979). In Brinson, defendant was credited with time spent in Pennsylvania while awaiting extradition to Michigan.

"Whenever any person is hereafter convicted of any crime within this state and has served any time in jail prior to sentencing because of being denied or unable to furnish bond for the offense of which he is convicted, the trial court in imposing sentence shall specifically grant credit against the sentence for such time served in jail prior to sentencing."

In Brinson, defendant had been arrested outside Michigan on a warrant issued by Michigan authorities; defendant was not being held on pending charges originating in that jurisdiction. Id., 679-680. In Havey, defendant left Michigan while free on bond. He was arrested and tried in Oregon on a burglary charge which resulted in an acquittal, and he was extradited to Michigan approximately 11 months later. Havey, supra, 72. Apparently, defendant was detained on a fugitive complaint immediately after his acquittal. Id., 82. Thus, he was in custody in Oregon solely because of the Michigan charge.

We do not view as dispositive the fact that Brinson and Havey were held outside Michigan solely on Michigan charges and that the instant defendant was held in Washington on Washington charges. Even if there had been no charges pending against the defendant in Washington or he had been acquitted of the Washington charges on or before January 18, 1978, he would have been held there awaiting extradition. The record indicates that the Washington authorities were aware of the Michigan charges as of January 18, 1978. Thus, we find that defendant should be credited with the period spent in custody from January 18, 1978, to July 17, 1978, on the authority of Brinson, supra, and Havey, supra. Accordingly, we order that defendant be given such 181-day credit, GCR 1963, 865.1(7).

Affirmed as modified.

PEOPLE v. DORSEY