Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 777 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21 (2026)

Minimum sentence range; determination.

✓ 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


777.21 Minimum sentence range; determination.

Sec. 21.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for an offense enumerated in part 2 of this chapter, determine the recommended minimum sentence range as follows:

    (a) Find the offense category for the offense from part 2 of this chapter. From section 22 of this chapter, determine the offense variables to be scored for that offense category and score only those offense variables for the offender as provided in part 4 of this chapter. Total those points to determine the offender's offense variable level.

    (b) Score all prior record variables for the offender as provided in part 5 of this chapter. Total those points to determine the offender's prior record variable level.

    (c) Find the offense class for the offense from part 2 of this chapter. Using the sentencing grid for that offense class in part 6 of this chapter, determine the recommended minimum sentence range from the intersection of the offender's offense variable level and prior record variable level. The recommended minimum sentence within a sentencing grid is shown as a range of months or life.

    (2) If the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, subject to section 14 of chapter XI, score each offense as provided in this part.

    (3) If the offender is being sentenced under section 10, 11, or 12 of chapter IX, determine the offense category, offense class, offense variable level, and prior record variable level based on the underlying offense. To determine the recommended minimum sentence range, increase the upper limit of the recommended minimum sentence range determined under part 6 for the underlying offense as follows:

    (a) If the offender is being sentenced for a second felony, 25%.

    (b) If the offender is being sentenced for a third felony, 50%.

    (c) If the offender is being sentenced for a fourth or subsequent felony, 100%.

    (4) If the offender is being sentenced for a violation described in section 18 of this chapter, both of the following apply:

    (a) Determine the offense variable level by scoring the offense variables for the underlying offense and any additional offense variables for the offense category indicated in section 18 of this chapter.

    (b) Determine the offense class based on the underlying offense. If there are multiple underlying felony offenses, the offense class is the same as that of the underlying felony offense with the highest crime class. If there are multiple underlying offenses but only 1 is a felony, the offense class is the same as that of the underlying felony offense. If no underlying offense is a felony, the offense class is G.

    (5) If the offender is being sentenced for an attempted felony described in section 19 of this chapter, determine the offense variable level and prior record variable level based on the underlying attempted offense.

History: Add. 1998, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 15, 1998 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 279, Eff. Oct. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 655, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 2007

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 270 cases (67 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: People v. Peltola, 803 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Peltola, 803 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 52× “21(4), and, therefore, the answer necessarily turns on the language of MCL 777.21, which sets forth the instructions for calculating a defendant’s minimum sentence range.”
People v. Lowe, 773 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 28× “[12] Defendant also contends that MCL 777.21 supports his position that the trial court can only double the maximum sentence under MCL 333.”
People v. Johnigan, 696 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 22× “[19] I begin my analysis of Mack by noting that its interpretation of MCL 777.21(2) is erroneous. The critical error in Mack is that it overlooks the language of MCL 777.”
People v. McGraw, 771 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 12× “We relied on the Legislature's use of the terms "the offense" and "each offense" in MCL 777.21: MCL 777.21 instructs us on how to score the sentencing guidelines.”
People v. McCuller, 739 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 21× “MCL 777.21. Thus, under MCL 769.34(4)(a), a defendant does not even qualify for an intermediate sanction until after the court has scored all the sentencing variables, including the OVs, and those variables indicate that the upper limit of the defendant's minimum sentence range…”
People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 6× “MCL 777.21(1)(a) and MCL 777.22(1) direct courts to score OVs 1 through 4, 7 through 14, 19 and 20 for crimes against a person, a designation that applies to kidnapping, MCL 777.”
People v. Lopez, 854 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “But when MCL 777.21, which applies to the sentencing court, states that the court is to score offenses subject to how the probation department does so, it then necessarily incorporates those terms into the court’s obligations.”
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 10× “MCL 777.21(1)(a). The sentencing court must then determine which offense variables (OV) are applicable, score those variables, and total the points to determine the offender's offense variable level.”
People v. Gardner, 753 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 10× “MCL 777.21(3)(a) through (c). Here, defendant would have been subject to a maximum penalty of life in prison for his second-degree murder conviction even without an habitual offender enhancement.”
People v. Bonilla-Machado, 803 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 8× “MCL 777.21 explicitly sets forth instructions for scoring the sentencing guidelines and provides, in relevant part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for an offense enumerated in [MCL 777.”
People v. Hardy; People v. Glenn, 494 Mich. 430 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 4× “MCL 777.21(a). The upper-most range on each of the several charts is “100+ points,” and, therefore, any OV score of 100 points or above results in the same sentencing guidelines range.”
People v. McCuller, 715 N.W.2d 798 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 16× “] MCL 777.21 explicitly requires the court to consider the OVs, the PRVs, and the offense class to determine a defendant's recommended minimum guidelines range.”
Show all 270 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(1) — 14 cases
People v. Peltola, 803 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 2011). “21(4), and, therefore, the answer necessarily turns on the language of MCL 777.21, which sets forth the instructions for calculating a defendant’s minimum sentence range.”
People v. Harper, 739 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. 2007).
People v. McCuller, 739 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 2007). “MCL 777.21. Thus, under MCL 769.34(4)(a), a defendant does not even qualify for an intermediate sanction until after the court has scored all the sentencing variables, including the OVs, and those variables indicate that the upper limit of the defendant's minimum sentence range…”
People v. McGraw, 771 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2009). “We relied on the Legislature's use of the terms "the offense" and "each offense" in MCL 777.21: MCL 777.21 instructs us on how to score the sentencing guidelines.”
People v. Young, 740 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(1)(a) — 16 cases
People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015). “MCL 777.21(1)(a) and MCL 777.22(1) direct courts to score OVs 1 through 4, 7 through 14, 19 and 20 for crimes against a person, a designation that applies to kidnapping, MCL 777.”
People v. McGraw, 771 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2009). “We relied on the Legislature's use of the terms "the offense" and "each offense" in MCL 777.21: MCL 777.21 instructs us on how to score the sentencing guidelines.”
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 777.21(1)(a). The sentencing court must then determine which offense variables (OV) are applicable, score those variables, and total the points to determine the offender's offense variable level.”
People v. Bonilla-Machado, 803 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 2011). “MCL 777.21 explicitly sets forth instructions for scoring the sentencing guidelines and provides, in relevant part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for an offense enumerated in [MCL 777.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Anthony Wellman, 910 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(1)(b) — 17 cases
People v. Peltola, 803 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 2011). “21(4), and, therefore, the answer necessarily turns on the language of MCL 777.21, which sets forth the instructions for calculating a defendant’s minimum sentence range.”
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 777.21(1)(a). The sentencing court must then determine which offense variables (OV) are applicable, score those variables, and total the points to determine the offender's offense variable level.”
People of Michigan v. Alfred Jamal Ollison (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Mantwan Gladney (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Boston Jermaine Tompkins (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(1)(c) — 11 cases
People v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. 2008).
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 777.21(1)(a). The sentencing court must then determine which offense variables (OV) are applicable, score those variables, and total the points to determine the offender's offense variable level.”
People v. Wiggins, 795 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
People of Michigan v. Joe Angelo Reynolds (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Joe Angelo Reynolds (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(2) — 24 cases
People v. Johnigan, 696 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “[19] I begin my analysis of Mack by noting that its interpretation of MCL 777.21(2) is erroneous. The critical error in Mack is that it overlooks the language of MCL 777.”
People v. Lopez, 854 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “But when MCL 777.21, which applies to the sentencing court, states that the court is to score offenses subject to how the probation department does so, it then necessarily incorporates those terms into the court’s obligations.”
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 777.21(1)(a). The sentencing court must then determine which offense variables (OV) are applicable, score those variables, and total the points to determine the offender's offense variable level.”
People v. McGraw, 771 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2009). “We relied on the Legislature's use of the terms "the offense" and "each offense" in MCL 777.21: MCL 777.21 instructs us on how to score the sentencing guidelines.”
People v. Cook, 658 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(3) — 26 cases
People v. Johnigan, 696 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “[19] I begin my analysis of Mack by noting that its interpretation of MCL 777.21(2) is erroneous. The critical error in Mack is that it overlooks the language of MCL 777.”
People v. Peltola, 803 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 2011). “21(4), and, therefore, the answer necessarily turns on the language of MCL 777.21, which sets forth the instructions for calculating a defendant’s minimum sentence range.”
People v. Houston, 683 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
People v. McGraw, 771 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2009). “We relied on the Legislature's use of the terms "the offense" and "each offense" in MCL 777.21: MCL 777.21 instructs us on how to score the sentencing guidelines.”
People v. Harper, 739 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. 2007).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(3)(a) — 48 cases
People v. McCuller, 739 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 2007). “MCL 777.21. Thus, under MCL 769.34(4)(a), a defendant does not even qualify for an intermediate sanction until after the court has scored all the sentencing variables, including the OVs, and those variables indicate that the upper limit of the defendant's minimum sentence range…”
People v. Gardner, 753 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 2008). “MCL 777.21(3)(a) through (c). Here, defendant would have been subject to a maximum penalty of life in prison for his second-degree murder conviction even without an habitual offender enhancement.”
People v. McCuller, 715 N.W.2d 798 (Mich. 2006). “] MCL 777.21 explicitly requires the court to consider the OVs, the PRVs, and the offense class to determine a defendant's recommended minimum guidelines range.”
People v Sours, 890 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People v. Mcchester, 873 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(3)(b) — 38 cases
People v. Gardner, 753 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 2008). “MCL 777.21(3)(a) through (c). Here, defendant would have been subject to a maximum penalty of life in prison for his second-degree murder conviction even without an habitual offender enhancement.”
People v. Drohan, 715 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. 2006).
People of Michigan v. Kelvin Willis, 914 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Rush Wesley Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Charles Terrance Underwood (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(3)(c) — 95 cases
People v. Armisted, 811 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
People v. Gardner, 753 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 2008). “MCL 777.21(3)(a) through (c). Here, defendant would have been subject to a maximum penalty of life in prison for his second-degree murder conviction even without an habitual offender enhancement.”
People v. Lopez, 854 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “But when MCL 777.21, which applies to the sentencing court, states that the court is to score offenses subject to how the probation department does so, it then necessarily incorporates those terms into the court’s obligations.”
People of Michigan v. Lonnie James Arnold, 918 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. 2018).
People v. Maben, 884 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(4) — 5 cases
People v. Peltola, 803 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 2011). “21(4), and, therefore, the answer necessarily turns on the language of MCL 777.21, which sets forth the instructions for calculating a defendant’s minimum sentence range.”
People v. Lowe, 773 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “[12] Defendant also contends that MCL 777.21 supports his position that the trial court can only double the maximum sentence under MCL 333.”
People v. Jackson, 805 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
People of Michigan v. Jermain Lee Pearson (Mich. 2012).
People v. Lowe, 759 N.W.2d 887 (Mich. 2009).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(4)(a) — 1 case
People v. Lowe, 773 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “[12] Defendant also contends that MCL 777.21 supports his position that the trial court can only double the maximum sentence under MCL 333.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(a) — 2 cases
People v. Hardy; People v. Glenn, 494 Mich. 430 (Mich. 2013). “MCL 777.21(a). The upper-most range on each of the several charts is “100+ points,” and, therefore, any OV score of 100 points or above results in the same sentencing guidelines range.”
People of Michigan v. Devon Decarlos Glenn Jr (Mich. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(l)(a) — 8 cases
People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015). “MCL 777.21(1)(a) and MCL 777.22(1) direct courts to score OVs 1 through 4, 7 through 14, 19 and 20 for crimes against a person, a designation that applies to kidnapping, MCL 777.”
People v. McGraw, 771 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2009). “We relied on the Legislature's use of the terms "the offense" and "each offense" in MCL 777.21: MCL 777.21 instructs us on how to score the sentencing guidelines.”
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 777.21(1)(a). The sentencing court must then determine which offense variables (OV) are applicable, score those variables, and total the points to determine the offender's offense variable level.”
People v. Bonilla-Machado, 803 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 2011). “MCL 777.21 explicitly sets forth instructions for scoring the sentencing guidelines and provides, in relevant part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for an offense enumerated in [MCL 777.”
People v. Sargent, 750 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. 2008).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(l)(b) — 1 case
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 777.21(1)(a). The sentencing court must then determine which offense variables (OV) are applicable, score those variables, and total the points to determine the offender's offense variable level.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.21(l)(c) — 3 cases
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 777.21(1)(a). The sentencing court must then determine which offense variables (OV) are applicable, score those variables, and total the points to determine the offender's offense variable level.”
People v. Bemer, 777 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
People v. Uphaus, 737 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
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.