People of Michigan v. Kevin Michael Clark ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                                        Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    September 27, 2016                                                                                   Robert P. Young, Jr.,
    Chief Justice
    Stephen J. Markman
    Brian K. Zahra
    151621 & (58)                                                                                     Bridget M. McCormack
    David F. Viviano
    Richard H. Bernstein
    Joan L. Larsen,
    Justices
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v                                                                 SC: 151621
    COA: 318697
    Livingston CC: 13-021225-FC
    KEVIN MICHAEL CLARK,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________/
    On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2015
    judgment of the Court of Appeals and the motion to remand are considered. Pursuant to
    MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment
    of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Livingston Circuit Court to
    determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under
    the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 
    498 Mich 358
     (2015), and to
    determine whether the post-sentencing amendment to the presentence investigation report
    would have caused the court to impose a different sentence. With regard to the Lockridge
    issue, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If,
    after taking into account both the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion and the
    amendment to the presentence investigation report, the trial court determines that it
    would have imposed the same sentence, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If,
    however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence, it
    shall resentence the defendant. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because
    we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this
    Court.
    We do not retain jurisdiction.
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    September 27, 2016
    d0919
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 151621

Filed Date: 9/27/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016