Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DREW JAMES PELTOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Robert P. Young, Jr. Michael F. Cavanagh Marilyn Kelly Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra

FILED JUNE 14, 2011 STATE OF MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

No. 140524

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH ZAHRA, J. This case presents the question whether scoring prior record variables (PRVs) when calculating a defendant's recommended minimum sentence range under the statutory sentencing guidelines is improper when a defendant's minimum and maximum sentences may be enhanced pursuant to MCL 333.7413(2). The sentence enhancement in MCL 333.7413(2) falls under the purview of MCL 777.21(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. Reading all the provisions of this

statute together, and thus giving effect to the Legislature's stated intent, we hold that MCL 777.21 requires the scoring of the PRVs when MCL 333.7413(2) is applicable. Accordingly, we affirm defendant's sentences. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A jury convicted defendant of delivery of less than 50 grams of heroin1 and conspiracy to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin.2 The trial court scored the PRVs and the relevant offense variables (OVs), calculating defendant's minimum sentence range at 5 to 23 months in prison with a statutory maximum of 20 years. Because defendant had a prior conviction for a controlled substance offense, the trial court applied the sentence enhancement in MCL 333.7413(2).3 The trial court doubled both the minimum and maximum sentences for each conviction and sentenced defendant within the enhanced guidelines range to concurrent terms of 46 months to 40 years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed as of right his convictions and sentences, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam.4 In particular, defendant

challenged the enhancement of his minimum sentences under MCL 333.7413(2). While defendant's appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, we issued People v Lowe, 484
1 2 3

MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv). MCL 750.157a.

MCL 333.7413(2) states, "Except as otherwise provided in subsections (1) and (3), an individual convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this article may be imprisoned for a term not more than twice the term otherwise authorized or fined an amount not more than twice that otherwise authorized, or both." People v Peltola, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 20, 2009 (Docket No. 288578).
4

2

Mich 718; 773 NW2d 1 (2009), holding that when MCL 333.7413(2) is applicable, it authorizes a court to enhance both a defendant's minimum and maximum sentences. Relying on Lowe, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant's challenge to his sentences. Defendant subsequently moved for reconsideration, recognizing the holding in Lowe, but arguing that additional language from Lowe indicated that PRVs should not be scored if a defendant's sentence may be enhanced under MCL 333.7413(2). The Court of Appeals denied defendant's motion for reconsideration without further comment.5 Defendant sought leave to appeal in this Court through counsel in the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO) and by filing a separate application in propria persona. We directed the prosecuting attorney to answer the application for leave filed by SADO on defendant's behalf.6 After receiving the prosecutor's answer, we denied the application that had been filed in propria persona.7 With respect to the application filed by SADO, we scheduled oral argument, instructing the parties to address whether the scoring of PRVs is improper when a defendant's minimum and maximum sentences may be doubled pursuant to MCL 333.7413(2).8

People v Peltola, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 14, 2009 (Docket No. 288578). We directed the prosecutor to specifically address the argument that Lowe, 484 Mich 718, precludes the scoring of the PRVs in this case.
7 8 6

5

People v Peltola, 488 Mich 876 (2010). Id.

3

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.9 III. ANALYSIS The question here is whether the Legislature intended that a court score the PRVs when calculating the minimum sentence range for an offender whose sentence may be enhanced under MCL 333.7413(2).10 MCL 777.21, which instructs on the calculation of the minimum sentence range, provides: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for an offense enumerated in part 2 of this chapter [MCL 777.11 through MCL 777.19], determine the recommended minimum sentence range as follows: (a) Find the offense category for the offense from part 2 of this chapter. From [MCL 777.22], 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 [MCL 777.31 through MCL 777.49a]. 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 [MCL 777.50 through MCL 777.57]. 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
9

People v Krueger, 466 Mich 50, 53; 643 NW2d 223 (2002).

10

It is undisputed that if the PRVs should not have been scored, defendant is entitled to resentencing. See People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82, 88-92; 711 NW2d 44 (2006). If the trial court had not scored the PRVs, defendant's minimum sentence range would have been zero to 6 months, which if doubled would have resulted in a zero- to 12-month minimum sentence range, rather than the 10- to 46-month minimum range calculated by the trial court, and the trial court would have been required to impose an intermediate sanction rather than a prison term absent a reason justifying a departure. MCL 769.34(4)(a).

4

[MCL 777.61 through MCL 777.69], 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 [MCL 771.14], score each offense as provided in this part [MCL 777.21 through MCL 777.22]. (3) If the offender is being sentenced under [MCL 769.10, MCL 769.11, or MCL 769.12], 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 [MCL 777.18], 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 [MCL 777.18]. (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 [MCL 777.19], determine the offense variable level and prior record variable level based on the underlying attempted offense.

5

Our overriding goal for interpreting a statute is to determine and give effect to the Legislature's intent.11 The most reliable indicator of the Legislature's intent is the words in the statute.12 We interpret those words in light of their ordinary meaning and their context within the statute and read them harmoniously to give effect to the statute as a whole.13 Moreover, "every word should be given meaning, and we should avoid a construction that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory."14 If the statutory language is unambiguous, no further judicial construction is required or permitted because we presume the Legislature intended the meaning that it plainly expressed.15 MCL 777.21(1) sets forth the general rule for determining a defendant's minimum sentence range, while subsections (2) through (5) set forth exceptions to the general rule and additional explanations regarding how the sentencing guidelines are applied to various specific classes of defendants and offenses. Reading

Download PEOPLE OF MI V DREW JAMES PELTOLA.pdf

Michigan Law