Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1987–1989 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Colesred2 sentences1987Since an appellate tribunal cannot, and should not, presume to divine the considerations which prompted a trial court, in its discretion, to impose a particular sentence, trial judges must assiduously comply with the Coles requirement of stating on the record "what reasons support the court’s decision regarding the length and nature of punishment imposed.” Coles, supra, p 550 . 1987Since an appellate tribunal cannot, and should not, presume to divine the considerations which prompted a trial court, in its discretion, to impose a particular sentence, trial judges must assiduously comply with the Coles requirement of stating on the record "what reasons support the court's decision regarding the length and nature of punishment imposed." Coles, supra, p 550 . | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Girardin
green
2 sentences1989The Smith Court held that the four enumerated Coles factors plus the factor in dispute here supported a departure from the guidelines' minimum sentence range. [5] See also People v Girardin, 165 Mich App 264, 266-267 ; 418 NW2d 453 (1987), and People v Steele, 173 Mich App 502, 504-505 ; 434 NW2d 175 (1988), where this Court held that the effect of the crime on the victim may properly be considered in sentencing. 1989The Smith Court held that the four enumerated Coles factors plus the factor in dispute here supported a departure from the guidelines' minimum sentence range. [5] See also People v Girardin, 165 Mich App 264, 266-267 ; 418 NW2d 453 (1987), and People v Steele, 173 Mich App 502, 504-505 ; 434 NW2d 175 (1988), where this Court held that the effect of the crime on the victim may properly be considered in sentencing. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Steele
green
2 sentences1989The Smith Court held that the four enumerated Coles factors plus the factor in dispute here supported a departure from the guidelines' minimum sentence range. [5] See also People v Girardin, 165 Mich App 264, 266-267 ; 418 NW2d 453 (1987), and People v Steele, 173 Mich App 502, 504-505 ; 434 NW2d 175 (1988), where this Court held that the effect of the crime on the victim may properly be considered in sentencing. 1989The Smith Court held that the four enumerated Coles factors plus the factor in dispute here supported a departure from the guidelines' minimum sentence range. [5] See also People v Girardin, 165 Mich App 264, 266-267 ; 418 NW2d 453 (1987), and People v Steele, 173 Mich App 502, 504-505 ; 434 NW2d 175 (1988), where this Court held that the effect of the crime on the victim may properly be considered in sentencing. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1989Id.; People v Johnson, 173 Mich App 706, 709 ; 434 NW2d 218 (1988). 1989Id.; People v Johnson, 173 Mich App 706, 709 ; 434 NW2d 218 (1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Glover
red
2 sentences1988People v Kenneth Johnson, supra; People v Glover, *236 154 Mich App 22, 45 ; 397 NW2d 199 (1986); People v McLeod, 143 Mich App 262, 264 ; 372 NW2d 526 (1985). 1988People v Kenneth Johnson, supra; People v Glover, *236 154 Mich App 22, 45 ; 397 NW2d 199 (1986); People v McLeod, 143 Mich App 262, 264 ; 372 NW2d 526 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. McLeod
green
2 sentences1988People v Kenneth Johnson, supra; People v Glover, *236 154 Mich App 22, 45 ; 397 NW2d 199 (1986); People v McLeod, 143 Mich App 262, 264 ; 372 NW2d 526 (1985). 1988People v Kenneth Johnson, supra; People v Glover, *236 154 Mich App 22, 45 ; 397 NW2d 199 (1986); People v McLeod, 143 Mich App 262, 264 ; 372 NW2d 526 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Kenneth Johnson
green
2 sentences1988People v Kenneth Johnson, supra; People v Glover, *236 154 Mich App 22, 45 ; 397 NW2d 199 (1986); People v McLeod, 143 Mich App 262, 264 ; 372 NW2d 526 (1985). 1988People v Kenneth Johnson, supra; People v Glover, *236 154 Mich App 22, 45 ; 397 NW2d 199 (1986); People v McLeod, 143 Mich App 262, 264 ; 372 NW2d 526 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Curry
green
2 sentences1988People v Coles, 417 Mich 523 ; 339 NW2d 440 (1983); People v Curry, 142 Mich App 724 ; 371 NW2d 854 (1985). 1988People v Coles, 417 Mich 523 ; 339 NW2d 440 (1983); People v Curry, 142 Mich App 724 ; 371 NW2d 854 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Hoffman
neutral
2 sentences1988The correct holding in Broden is that, "when the sentencing guidelines recommendation is followed, reference only to the sentencing guidelines as the reason for sentence is sufficient to fulfill the Coles requirement that the sentencing court articulate reasons for the sentence.” People v Hoffman, 163 Mich App 530, 531 ; 415 NW2d 265 (1987). 1988The correct holding in Broden is that, "when the sentencing guidelines recommendation is followed, reference only to the sentencing guidelines as the reason for sentence is sufficient to fulfill the Coles requirement that the sentencing court articulate reasons for the sentence.” People v Hoffman, 163 Mich App 530, 531 ; 415 NW2d 265 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Rondon
green
2 sentences1987On appeal to our Supreme Court, the remedy of resentencing was not disturbed, but the Court summarily concluded that this Court, having decided that the condition of probation was illegal, "should have remanded the case, without further direction, ... for resentencing." (Emphasis added.) This Court's Coles analysis was "premature." The holding of the Supreme Court was that the defendant must be sentenced anew on remand. *261 Consistent with the holding in Gauntlett is People v Rondon, 144 Mich App 410 ; 375 NW2d 761 (1985), rev'd 424 Mich 864 (1985), where the defendant was charged with an off 1987On appeal to our Supreme Court, the remedy of resentencing was not disturbed, but the Court summarily concluded that this Court, having decided that the condition of probation was illegal, "should have remanded the case, without further direction, ... for resentencing." (Emphasis added.) This Court's Coles analysis was "premature." The holding of the Supreme Court was that the defendant must be sentenced anew on remand. *261 Consistent with the holding in Gauntlett is People v Rondon, 144 Mich App 410 ; 375 NW2d 761 (1985), rev'd 424 Mich 864 (1985), where the defendant was charged with an off | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.