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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42 (2026)

Contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.

✓ 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


777.42 Contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.

Sec. 42.

    (1) Offense variable 12 is contemporaneous felonious criminal acts. Score offense variable 12 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points:

    

    (a) Three or more contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed

    25 points

    (b) Two contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed

    10 points

    (c) Three or more contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving other crimes were committed

    10 points

    (d) One contemporaneous felonious criminal act involving a crime against a person was committed

    5 points

    (e) Two contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving other crimes were committed

    5 points

    (f) One contemporaneous felonious criminal act involving any other crime was committed

    1 point

    (g) No contemporaneous felonious criminal acts were committed

    0 points

    (2) All of the following apply to scoring offense variable 12:

    (a) A felonious criminal act is contemporaneous if both of the following circumstances exist:

    (i) The act occurred within 24 hours of the sentencing offense.

    (ii) The act has not and will not result in a separate conviction.

    (b) A violation of section 227b of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.227b, should not be considered for scoring this variable.

    (c) Do not score conduct scored in offense variable 11.

    

History: Add. 1998, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 15, 1998

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 180 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: People v. Light, 803 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Light, 803 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 13× “THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF OV 12 Under MCL 777.42, OV 12 establishes the scoring guidelines for the trial court to use “to determine whether [a] defendant engaged in any ‘contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People of Michigan v. Alonzo Carter, 931 N.W.2d 566 (Mich. 2019). · cites it 9× “17 OV 12 is governed by MCL 777.42, which states that it is appropriate to assess an offender 10 points when "[t]wo contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed.”
People v. Bonilla-Machado, 803 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 8× “Score offense variable 13 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points: (a) The offense was part of a pattern of felonious criminal activity involving 3 or more sexual penetrations…”
People v. Bemer, 777 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 15× “SCORING OV 12 AND OV 13 Under MCL 777.42, the trial court had to determine whether defendant engaged in any “contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Norfleet, 897 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “” MCL 777.42(2)(a). Defendant was assessed 10 points for OV 12.”
People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “ov 12 Defendant argues regarding OV 12, MCL 777.42, that he should have been scored at zero because the prosecutor made no showing that three or more contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed within the date of the highest offense…”
People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Finally, defendant objects to the scoring of 25 points for OV 12, MCL 777.42. This offense variable is scored for contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Loper, 830 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “Due to that statute’s vagueness, defendant argues, the trial court erred by assessing 25 points for offense variable (OV) 12, MCL 777.42 *456 (contemporaneous felonious acts).”
People v. McLaughlin, 672 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “”) In the absence of such limiting language in MCL 777.42, we will not read a similar limitation into that section.”
People v. McGraw, 771 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 2× “MCL 777.42(2)(a). OV 13 (continuing pattern of criminal behavior) explicitly permits scoring for "all crimes within a 5-year period, including the sentencing offense," regardless of whether they resulted in convictions.”
People v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “41(1)(a); OV 12 (contemporaneous felonious acts) (25 points), MCL 777.42(1)(a); OV 13 (50 points), MCL 777.”
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “MCL 777.42(2)(a). OV 13 explicitly permits scoring for "all crimes within a 5-year period, including the sentencing offense" regardless of whether they resulted in conviction.”
Show all 180 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1) — 48 cases
People v. Light, 803 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF OV 12 Under MCL 777.42, OV 12 establishes the scoring guidelines for the trial court to use “to determine whether [a] defendant engaged in any ‘contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Bemer, 777 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “SCORING OV 12 AND OV 13 Under MCL 777.42, the trial court had to determine whether defendant engaged in any “contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “ov 12 Defendant argues regarding OV 12, MCL 777.42, that he should have been scored at zero because the prosecutor made no showing that three or more contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed within the date of the highest offense…”
People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Finally, defendant objects to the scoring of 25 points for OV 12, MCL 777.42. This offense variable is scored for contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Wiggins, 795 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(a) — 30 cases
People v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. 2008). “41(1)(a); OV 12 (contemporaneous felonious acts) (25 points), MCL 777.42(1)(a); OV 13 (50 points), MCL 777.”
People v. Bonilla-Machado, 803 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 2011). “Score offense variable 13 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points: (a) The offense was part of a pattern of felonious criminal activity involving 3 or more sexual penetrations…”
People v. Loper, 830 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Due to that statute’s vagueness, defendant argues, the trial court erred by assessing 25 points for offense variable (OV) 12, MCL 777.42 *456 (contemporaneous felonious acts).”
People of Michigan v. Nickolas Jonathan Frederick (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Joshua Sterling Sweet (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(a)(i) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Robert Lee Hicks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(a)(ii) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Robert Lee Hicks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(b) — 29 cases
People of Michigan v. Alonzo Carter, 931 N.W.2d 566 (Mich. 2019). “17 OV 12 is governed by MCL 777.42, which states that it is appropriate to assess an offender 10 points when "[t]wo contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed.”
People of Michigan v. Stacy Lynn Radtke (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Antravel Lavar Beckom (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Joshua Sterling Sweet (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Orby Jr Hooker III (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(c) — 15 cases
People of Michigan v. Kenneth Daniel Brunke (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Kenneth Daniel Brunke (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Bobby Maurice Cochran (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Crystal L Shelton-Randolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Crystal L Shelton-Randolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(d) — 29 cases
People of Michigan v. Joshua Jamalle Mitchell (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Joshua Jamalle Mitchell (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Gabriel Raphael Leaf (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. James Ronnie Holloway II (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
People of Michigan v. David Lee Farris (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(e) — 12 cases
People of Michigan v. Nicole Lynn Pacheco (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Joshua Jamalle Mitchell (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Joshua Jamalle Mitchell (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Shukur Terome Brown (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Sean William Quigley (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(f) — 14 cases
People of Michigan v. Donald Pierre Jett (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Anthony Daniel Walker (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Amire Armstrong-Nichols (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Deshon Marcel Session (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Wesley Lamarr Banks (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(1)(g) — 8 cases
People of Michigan v. Michael Larry Dustin Lemaster (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Bobby Maurice Cochran (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Laneill Prince (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Laneill Prince (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Alexis Christine Welsh (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(2) — 10 cases
People v. Mutchie, 650 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
People of Michigan v. Crystal L Shelton-Randolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Crystal L Shelton-Randolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Joshua Sterling Sweet (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Antravel Lavar Beckom (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(2)(a) — 52 cases
People of Michigan v. Alonzo Carter, 931 N.W.2d 566 (Mich. 2019). “17 OV 12 is governed by MCL 777.42, which states that it is appropriate to assess an offender 10 points when "[t]wo contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed.”
People v. Norfleet, 897 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” MCL 777.42(2)(a). Defendant was assessed 10 points for OV 12.”
People v. McGraw, 771 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2009). “MCL 777.42(2)(a). OV 13 (continuing pattern of criminal behavior) explicitly permits scoring for "all crimes within a 5-year period, including the sentencing offense," regardless of whether they resulted in convictions.”
People v. Morson, 685 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 777.42(2)(a). OV 13 explicitly permits scoring for "all crimes within a 5-year period, including the sentencing offense" regardless of whether they resulted in conviction.”
People v. Loper, 830 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Due to that statute’s vagueness, defendant argues, the trial court erred by assessing 25 points for offense variable (OV) 12, MCL 777.42 *456 (contemporaneous felonious acts).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(2)(a)(i) — 31 cases
People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Finally, defendant objects to the scoring of 25 points for OV 12, MCL 777.42. This offense variable is scored for contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Light, 803 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF OV 12 Under MCL 777.42, OV 12 establishes the scoring guidelines for the trial court to use “to determine whether [a] defendant engaged in any ‘contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People of Michigan v. Donald Pierre Jett (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
People of Michigan v. MacKenzie Lynn Quarrels (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Branquell Sayman-Anthony Bates (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(2)(a)(ii) — 24 cases
People v. McLaughlin, 672 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “”) In the absence of such limiting language in MCL 777.42, we will not read a similar limitation into that section.”
People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “ov 12 Defendant argues regarding OV 12, MCL 777.42, that he should have been scored at zero because the prosecutor made no showing that three or more contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed within the date of the highest offense…”
People v. Billings, 770 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
People v. Bemer, 777 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “SCORING OV 12 AND OV 13 Under MCL 777.42, the trial court had to determine whether defendant engaged in any “contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People of Michigan v. Demetrious Edward Faulkner (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(2)(b) — 10 cases
People v. McLILLY, 690 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 2004).
People of Michigan v. Orby Jr Hooker III (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Amire Armstrong-Nichols (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Steven Michael Shippee (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Steven Michael Shippee (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(2)(c) — 9 cases
People v. Bemer, 777 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “SCORING OV 12 AND OV 13 Under MCL 777.42, the trial court had to determine whether defendant engaged in any “contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Mutchie, 650 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
People of Michigan v. Crystal L Shelton-Randolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Crystal L Shelton-Randolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Alfonzo Gordon Pollard (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(2)(i) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Franklin Curtis Love (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Andrew Michael-Brian Elliott (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(2)(ii) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Alex Hale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(3)(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Gregory Donell Patterson (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(a) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Johnny Miller (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Johnny Miller (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Tyler Jameil Pagel (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(a)(i) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Shantee Brown (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(a)(ii) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Shantee Brown (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(b) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Charles Eugene Walker (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(l)(a) — 4 cases
People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “ov 12 Defendant argues regarding OV 12, MCL 777.42, that he should have been scored at zero because the prosecutor made no showing that three or more contemporaneous felonious criminal acts involving crimes against a person were committed within the date of the highest offense…”
People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Finally, defendant objects to the scoring of 25 points for OV 12, MCL 777.42. This offense variable is scored for contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Light, 803 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF OV 12 Under MCL 777.42, OV 12 establishes the scoring guidelines for the trial court to use “to determine whether [a] defendant engaged in any ‘contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Loper, 830 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Due to that statute’s vagueness, defendant argues, the trial court erred by assessing 25 points for offense variable (OV) 12, MCL 777.42 *456 (contemporaneous felonious acts).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(l)(c) — 1 case
People v. Norfleet, 897 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” MCL 777.42(2)(a). Defendant was assessed 10 points for OV 12.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(l)(d) — 1 case
People v. Bemer, 777 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “SCORING OV 12 AND OV 13 Under MCL 777.42, the trial court had to determine whether defendant engaged in any “contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(l)(e) — 1 case
People v. Light, 803 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF OV 12 Under MCL 777.42, OV 12 establishes the scoring guidelines for the trial court to use “to determine whether [a] defendant engaged in any ‘contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(l)(f) — 1 case
People v. Light, 803 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF OV 12 Under MCL 777.42, OV 12 establishes the scoring guidelines for the trial court to use “to determine whether [a] defendant engaged in any ‘contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.42(l)(g) — 3 cases
People v. Norfleet, 897 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” MCL 777.42(2)(a). Defendant was assessed 10 points for OV 12.”
People v. Light, 803 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF OV 12 Under MCL 777.42, OV 12 establishes the scoring guidelines for the trial court to use “to determine whether [a] defendant engaged in any ‘contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
People v. Bemer, 777 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “SCORING OV 12 AND OV 13 Under MCL 777.42, the trial court had to determine whether defendant engaged in any “contemporaneous felonious criminal acts.”
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.