Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that felony sentencing by videoconference is not permitted under MCR 6.006 and also is fundamentally unfair.  In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160714_C326821_35_326821.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Heller</a>, No. 326821, based on the faulty procedure for sentencing, the court remanded the case for resentencing at defendant’s option.

contentpilot/introduction

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in exchange for the prosecution dropping other charges.&nbsp; The trial court conducted defendant’s sentencing by videoconference with defendant sitting in his jail cell.&nbsp; Defendant was not advised that he had the option to appear personally, and he did not have the opportunity to talk privately with counsel during the sentencing.&nbsp; Defendant’s minimum sentencing guideline range was 0 to 17 months’ imprisonment, but the trial court sentenced him to 30 to 120 months, justifying the change based on defendant’s long history of offenses, his involvement in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and his drug abuse.&nbsp;

core/paragraph

On appeal, defendant argued that the length of his sentence was unreasonable and that the trial court erred in conducting the sentencing by videoconference.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals ruled that trial court must be permitted to reconsider defendant’s sentence for proportionality following the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lockridge and the Court of Appeal’s decision in People v. Steanhouse.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court of Appeals also held that the defendant has a right to resentencing and must be physically present in the courtroom if he chooses to be resentenced, because defendant’s sentencing by videoconference was in error.&nbsp; The court based their decision on the fact that the Supreme Court could have included felony sentencing as a situation where videoconferencing is allowed under MCR 6.006, but did not.&nbsp; The court also noted that videoconferencing dehumanizes a defendant and can lead to harsher treatment, so a defendant’s physical absence from the courtroom is fundamentally unfair.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

COA: Felony sentencing cannot be done by videoconference

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.

COA: Felony sentencing cannot be done by videoconference

professionals