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.
46 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2024 5 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. Lockridgegreen2 sentences2022Defendant contends that under People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), the proper remedy was limited to a Crosby hearing. 2022Defendant contends that under People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), the proper remedy was limited to a Crosby hearing. | 8 | 22 |
United States v. Jerome Crosbyred2 sentences2019On direct appeal, we affirmed defendant’s convictions, but remanded the case for a determination regarding whether resentencing was warranted under People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), and United States v Crosby, 397 F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005).1 On remand, the trial court held a Crosby hearing, and declined to resentence defendant in light of Lockridge, 498 Mich at 395-399 . 2019On direct appeal, we affirmed defendant’s convictions, but remanded the case for a determination regarding whether resentencing was warranted under People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), and United States v Crosby, 397 F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005).1 On remand, the trial court held a Crosby hearing, and declined to resentence defendant in light of Lockridge, 498 Mich at 395-399 . | 1 | 11 |
People v. Steanhousegreen2 sentences2023Douglas I, unpub op at 5. -2- In defendant’s first appeal, we affirmed defendant’s convictions but remanded for a Crosby hearing in accordance with this Court’s opinion in People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 3 1 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (Steanhouse I), aff’d in part and rev’d in part 500 Mich 453 (2017).4 But before the trial court held the Crosby hearing, our Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts must review upwardly departing sentences for reasonableness under the principle of proportionality, rather than remand to the trial court for Crosby hearings. 2023Douglas I, unpub op at 5. -2- In defendant’s first appeal, we affirmed defendant’s convictions but remanded for a Crosby hearing in accordance with this Court’s opinion in People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 3 1 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (Steanhouse I), aff’d in part and rev’d in part 500 Mich 453 (2017).4 But before the trial court held the Crosby hearing, our Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts must review upwardly departing sentences for reasonableness under the principle of proportionality, rather than remand to the trial court for Crosby hearings. | 1 | 7 |
Annette Sanford v. Joan Yukins, Wardengreen2 sentences2024See Sanford v Yukins, 288 F3d 855, 860 (CA 6, 2002). 2024See Sanford v Yukins, 288 F3d 855, 860 (CA 6, 2002). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Swaingreen2 sentences2018See People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 628 ; 794 NW2d 92 (2010) (noting that a trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is premised on an error of law). 2018See People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 628 ; 794 NW2d 92 (2010) (noting that a trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is premised on an error of law). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Franciscogreen2 sentences2016See id. 2016See id. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2015Finally, we believe that remand for a Crosby hearing in cases like that now before us unnecessarily complicates and prolongs the sentencing process. -21- Before the United States Supreme Court decided Gall, a number of federal courts had held that “[a]n extraordinary reduction [from the guidelines’ range] must be supported by extraordinary circumstances.” United States v Burns, 500 F3d 756, 761 (CA 8 2007), vacated and remanded 552 US 1137 ; 128 S Ct 1091 ; 169 L Ed 2d 804 (2008). 2015Finally, we believe that remand for a Crosby hearing in cases like that now before us unnecessarily complicates and prolongs the sentencing process. -21- Before the United States Supreme Court decided Gall, a number of federal courts had held that “[a]n extraordinary reduction [from the guidelines’ range] must be supported by extraordinary circumstances.” United States v Burns, 500 F3d 756, 761 (CA 8 2007), vacated and remanded 552 US 1137 ; 128 S Ct 1091 ; 169 L Ed 2d 804 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Allan Johnsongreen2 sentences2015Before the United States Supreme Court decided Gall , a number of federal courts had held that “[a]n extraordinary reduction [from the guidelines range] must be supported by extraordinary circumstances.” United States v Burns, 500 F3d 756, 761 (CA8, 2007), vacated and remanded 552 US 1137 (2008). 10 See also United States v Johnson, 427 F3d 423, 426-427 (CA 7, 2005). 2015Before the United States Supreme Court decided Gall , a number of federal courts had held that “[a]n extraordinary reduction [from the guidelines range] must be supported by extraordinary circumstances.” United States v Burns, 500 F3d 756, 761 (CA8, 2007), vacated and remanded 552 US 1137 (2008). 10 See also United States v Johnson, 427 F3d 423, 426-427 (CA 7, 2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Stokes
green
2 sentences2017Further, in determining whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence but for the unconstitutional constraint, the court should consider only the circumstances existing at the time of the original sentence. [People v Stokes, 312 Mich App 181, 198 ; 877 NW2d 752 (2015) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] In sum, because defendant’s sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment, we remand to the trial court for a Crosby hearing. 2017Further, in determining whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence but for the unconstitutional constraint, the court should consider only the circumstances existing at the time of the original sentence. [People v Stokes, 312 Mich App 181, 198 ; 877 NW2d 752 (2015) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] In sum, because defendant’s sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment, we remand to the trial court for a Crosby hearing. | 7 | 2016–2017 |
People of Michigan v. Justin Duane Howard
green
2 sentences2022Nevertheless, in Heller, 316 Mich App at 318-319 , this Court recognized that defendants have a constitutional right to appear physically at their felony sentencings and virtual appearance is not a suitable substitute, and in Howard, 323 Mich App at 253 , this Court extended application of that principle to the first phase of a Crosby hearing at which a newly assigned judge must decide whether the court would resentence the defendant. 2022Nevertheless, in Heller, 316 Mich App at 318-319 , this Court recognized that defendants have a constitutional right to appear physically at their felony sentencings and virtual appearance is not a suitable substitute, and in Howard, 323 Mich App at 253 , this Court extended application of that principle to the first phase of a Crosby hearing at which a newly assigned judge must decide whether the court would resentence the defendant. | 2 | 2019–2022 |
People v. Shank
green
2 sentences2020But because this Court was “bound to follow the precedent established by Shank, 313 Mich App 221 , and only because we are so bound,” this Court remanded for a Crosby hearing. 2020But because this Court was “bound to follow the precedent established by Shank, 313 Mich App 221 , and only because we are so bound,” this Court remanded for a Crosby hearing. | 2 | 2016–2020 |
People v. Jones
green
2 sentences2018The prosecution argued that defendant failed to raise an evidentiary challenge to the OV scores in his prior appeal, and the issue on remand was solely whether the trial court would have sentenced defendant to a materially different sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory. -5- “[W]here an appellate court remands for some limited purpose following an appeal as of right in a criminal case, a second appeal as of right, limited to the scope of the remand, lies from the decision on remand.” People v Kincade (On Remand), 206 Mich App 477, 481 ; 522 NW2d 880 (1994). “[T]he scope of th 2018The prosecution argued that defendant failed to raise an evidentiary challenge to the OV scores in his prior appeal, and the issue on remand was solely whether the trial court would have sentenced defendant to a materially different sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory. -5- “[W]here an appellate court remands for some limited purpose following an appeal as of right in a criminal case, a second appeal as of right, limited to the scope of the remand, lies from the decision on remand.” People v Kincade (On Remand), 206 Mich App 477, 481 ; 522 NW2d 880 (1994). “[T]he scope of th | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Kincade
green
2 sentences2018The prosecution argued that defendant failed to raise an evidentiary challenge to the OV scores in his prior appeal, and the issue on remand was solely whether the trial court would have sentenced defendant to a materially different sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory. -5- “[W]here an appellate court remands for some limited purpose following an appeal as of right in a criminal case, a second appeal as of right, limited to the scope of the remand, lies from the decision on remand.” People v Kincade (On Remand), 206 Mich App 477, 481 ; 522 NW2d 880 (1994). “[T]he scope of th 2018The prosecution argued that defendant failed to raise an evidentiary challenge to the OV scores in his prior appeal, and the issue on remand was solely whether the trial court would have sentenced defendant to a materially different sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory. -5- “[W]here an appellate court remands for some limited purpose following an appeal as of right in a criminal case, a second appeal as of right, limited to the scope of the remand, lies from the decision on remand.” People v Kincade (On Remand), 206 Mich App 477, 481 ; 522 NW2d 880 (1994). “[T]he scope of th | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Milbourn
red
2 sentences2016Factors previously considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard included, among others, (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation; and (3) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines in a particular case. [Steanhouse, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 24 (citations omitted).] Pursuant to Steanhouse, because the law and analysis 2016Factors previously considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard included, among others, (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation; and (3) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines in a particular case. [Steanhouse, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 24 (citations omitted).] Pursuant to Steanhouse, because the law and analysis | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People of Michigan v. Menayetta Michell Yeager
green
2 sentences2024See People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478 , 487; 999 NW2d 490 (2023) (This Court reviews de novo questions of law); People v Anderson, 326 Mich App 747, 751 ; 929 NW2d 835 (2019) (This Court reviews de novo whether a trial court followed a remand order). 2024See People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478 , 487; 999 NW2d 490 (2023) (This Court reviews de novo questions of law); People v Anderson, 326 Mich App 747, 751 ; 929 NW2d 835 (2019) (This Court reviews de novo whether a trial court followed a remand order). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People of Michigan v. Josephus Anderson
neutral
2 sentences2024See People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478 , 487; 999 NW2d 490 (2023) (This Court reviews de novo questions of law); People v Anderson, 326 Mich App 747, 751 ; 929 NW2d 835 (2019) (This Court reviews de novo whether a trial court followed a remand order). 2024See People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478 , 487; 999 NW2d 490 (2023) (This Court reviews de novo questions of law); People v Anderson, 326 Mich App 747, 751 ; 929 NW2d 835 (2019) (This Court reviews de novo whether a trial court followed a remand order). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Ginther
green
2 sentences2022Therefore, defendant failed to preserve for appeal his alternative claim of error. 6 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- Defendant also did not object in the lower court after remand to defense counsel’s appointment to represent him in the Crosby hearing, raised no issue of lack of preparation, conflict of interest, nor did he even intimate that his counsel performed deficiently. 2022Therefore, defendant failed to preserve for appeal his alternative claim of error. 6 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- Defendant also did not object in the lower court after remand to defense counsel’s appointment to represent him in the Crosby hearing, raised no issue of lack of preparation, conflict of interest, nor did he even intimate that his counsel performed deficiently. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People of Michigan v. Allan Wayne Shank
neutral
2 sentences2020Tyson, unpub op at 9; People v Shank, 501 Mich 904 ; 902 NW2d 602 (2017). 2020Tyson, unpub op at 9; People v Shank, 501 Mich 904 ; 902 NW2d 602 (2017). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Metamora Water Service, Inc
green
2 sentences2016Generally, “[f]or an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be raised, addressed, and decided by the lower court.” People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 382 ; 741 NW2d 61 (2007). 2016Generally, “[f]or an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be raised, addressed, and decided by the lower court.” People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 382 ; 741 NW2d 61 (2007). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Armisted
green
2 sentences2016A sentence is deemed to be reasonable if it meets the principle of proportionality test as delineated in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), superseded as stated in Armisted, 295 Mich App at 32 . 2016A sentence is deemed to be reasonable if it meets the principle of proportionality test as delineated in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), superseded as stated in Armisted, 295 Mich App at 32 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Alleyne v. United States
green
2 sentences2015Finally, the prosecution concedes that the trial court must correct defendant’s judgment of sentence, which erroneously indicates that one of defendant’s felony-firearm convictions was predicated on his fleeing and eluding conviction when these convictions were predicated on his home invasion and assault convictions, respectively. 2 Alleyne v United States, ___ US ___; 133 S Ct 2151 ; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013). -3- We affirm defendant’s convictions, but we remand for correction of defendant’s presentence investigation report and judgment of sentence and for the trial court to determine whether it 2015Finally, the prosecution concedes that the trial court must correct defendant’s judgment of sentence, which erroneously indicates that one of defendant’s felony-firearm convictions was predicated on his fleeing and eluding conviction when these convictions were predicated on his home invasion and assault convictions, respectively. 2 Alleyne v United States, ___ US ___; 133 S Ct 2151 ; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013). -3- We affirm defendant’s convictions, but we remand for correction of defendant’s presentence investigation report and judgment of sentence and for the trial court to determine whether it | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.