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

In <em><a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20150317_C320460_38_320460.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Baldes</a></em>, No. 320460, the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. In so doing, the court held that a trial court does not have power to admit a defendant to a drug treatment court program, when doing so departs downward from the defendant’s recommended sentencing guideline range, unless the prosecutor has agreed to the departure.

contentpilot/introduction

Defendant Baldes pleaded guilty to several home invasion charges. The pre-sentence investigation report recommended a minimum sentence of 57 to 95 months imprisonment. The trial court ultimately departed downward from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced Baldes to five years’ probation and a two- year drug treatment court program.&nbsp; The prosecutor appealed claiming that the trial court violated MCL 600.1068(2) when it departed downward from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced Baldes to drug treatment court without the prosecutor’s approval. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that under MCL 600.1068(2), the trial court must have prosecutor approval before admitting a defendant into a drug treatment court program without when doing so departs from the sentencing guidelines.

core/paragraph

Baldes argued that the prosecutor approved the admission into the drug treatment court program when it either signed a screening document or when the prosecutor participated in the drug treatment court team meeting without objection. The court held that nothing on the screening document indicated that a signature constituted approval of Baldes admission into the program. Further, the court concluded that the prosecutor’s failure to object at the drug treatment court program team meeting did not imply approval, and did not waive the prosecutor’s right to later demand enforcement of the sentencing guidelines. The court concluded that under MCL 600.1608, silence is not sufficient to constitute approval. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

Trial court must have prosecutor’s approval to sentence defendant to drug treatment court, if doing so requires a departure from the defendant’s sentencing guideline range

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. 

Trial court must have prosecutor’s approval to sentence defendant to drug treatment court, if doing so requires a departure from the defendant’s sentencing guideline range

professionals