Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 769 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1h (2026)

Consecutive or concurrent sentence.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


769.1h Consecutive or concurrent sentence.

Sec. 1h.

    (1) A judgment of sentence committing an individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.

    (2) Upon sentencing a defendant, the court shall provide a copy of the judgment of sentence to the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and the defendant's counsel.

    (3) The prosecuting attorney or the defendant's counsel, or the defendant if he or she is not represented, may file an objection to the judgment of sentence on the issue of whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrent with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving. The court shall promptly hold a hearing on any objection filed. The procedure for reviewing a judgment of sentence provided in this subsection is in addition to any other review procedure authorized by statute or court rule.

History: Add. 2000, Act 220, Eff. Oct. 1, 2000

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: People v. Howell, 834 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Howell, 834 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “” 15 MCL 769.1h(1) requires the trial court to specify whether a defendant’s sentence is concurrent with or consecutive to any other sentence that the defendant is, or will be, serving.”
People of Michigan v. Demetrise Cortez Rainge (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “1h(1) provides: “A judgment of sentence committing an individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.”…”
People of Michigan v. Demetrise Cortez Rainge (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “1h(1) provides: “A judgment of sentence committing an individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.”…”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1h provides that judgments of sentence that commit a defendant to the Department of Corrections “shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1h provides that judgments of sentence that commit a defendant to the Department of Corrections “shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.”
People of Michigan v. Russell Allen Higdon (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “” MCL 769.1h(1). The trial court must articulate its rationale for imposing a consecutive sentence sufficient to allow appellate review.”
People of Michigan v. Marquise Deshanne Hardin (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Also of relevance to the discussion, MCL 769.1h(1) requires the trial court to specify whether a defendant’s sentence is concurrent with or consecutive to any other sentence that the defendant is, or will be serving.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1h(1) — 5 cases
People v. Howell, 834 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “” 15 MCL 769.1h(1) requires the trial court to specify whether a defendant’s sentence is concurrent with or consecutive to any other sentence that the defendant is, or will be, serving.”
People of Michigan v. Demetrise Cortez Rainge (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1h(1) provides: “A judgment of sentence committing an individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.”…”
People of Michigan v. Demetrise Cortez Rainge (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1h(1) provides: “A judgment of sentence committing an individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.”…”
People of Michigan v. Russell Allen Higdon (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “” MCL 769.1h(1). The trial court must articulate its rationale for imposing a consecutive sentence sufficient to allow appellate review.”
People of Michigan v. Marquise Deshanne Hardin (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Also of relevance to the discussion, MCL 769.1h(1) requires the trial court to specify whether a defendant’s sentence is concurrent with or consecutive to any other sentence that the defendant is, or will be serving.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1h(3) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Demetrise Cortez Rainge (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1h(1) provides: “A judgment of sentence committing an individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.”…”
People of Michigan v. Demetrise Cortez Rainge (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1h(1) provides: “A judgment of sentence committing an individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections shall specify whether the sentence is to run consecutively to or concurrently with any other sentence the defendant is or will be serving, as provided by law.”…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.