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

According to the Michigan Court of Appeals, the sentencing requirements under MCL 750.335a(2)(c) for indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person are now mandatory following a 2005 amendment, and the sentencing guidelines are now advisory following the Michigan Supreme Court decision in People v. Lockridge, so courts must use the sentencing requirements under MCL 750.335a(2)(c) when the two are in conflict.  In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160714_C324708_58_324708.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Campbell</a>, No. 3234708, the Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing when the trial court sentenced the defendant based on the sentencing guidelines.

contentpilot/introduction

A jury convicted the defendant of six counts of indecent exposure and also found that defendant was a sexually delinquent person (a sentencing enhancement under MCL 750.335a).&nbsp; On appeal, the defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial and resentencing.&nbsp;

core/paragraph

First, the defendant claimed that he should get a new trial because the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself.&nbsp; However, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court substantially complied with the requirements of People v. Anderson and MCR 6.005(D), which mandate what the court must do to approve an initial waiver of the right to counsel.&nbsp; The trial court also substantially complied with the procedure outlined in MCR 6.005(E) to affirm defendant’s right to counsel at subsequent proceedings by soliciting an oral reply that defendant still wished to represent himself at each hearing and on the first day of trial.&nbsp;

Next, the defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial, because the trial court refused to hold separate trials for determining whether he committed indecent exposure and whether he was a sexually delinquent person.&nbsp; But the Court of Appeals noted that separate trials were no longer required after the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Breidenbach, so considering that two trials would result in presentation of the same evidence along with inconvenience and harassment of witnesses, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to only hold one trial.

Finally, the defendant maintained he was entitled to resentencing because the trial court sentenced him under the sentencing guidelines rather than the sentencing requirements of MCL 750.335a(2)(c).&nbsp; The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that the sentencing requirements of MCL 750.335a(2)(c) control and remanded for resentencing.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

Trial courts must look to mandatory statutory sentencing range for convictions of indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person not the sentencing guidelines

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 courts must look to mandatory statutory sentencing range for convictions of indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person not the sentencing guidelines

professionals