Title: PEOPLE OF MI V RAJAHAAN FARUQ CLARK

State: michigan

Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court

Document:

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________ 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 48909 
Chief Justice 
Justices 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED DECEMBER 12, 2000  
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,  
Plaintiff-Appellee,  
v 
No. 116029  
RAJAHAAN FARUQ CLARK,  
Defendant-Appellant.  
PER CURIAM  
The defendant was convicted of great number of weapon  
offenses, including two counts of felony-firearm. We affirm  
his convictions, but remand this case to the circuit court to  
correct the judgment of sentence with regard to the felony­
firearm convictions.  
I  
At about 3:45 a.m. on a morning in August 1995, the State  
Police stopped a van that was being driven erratically on a  
Lansing street.  On the basis of what they learned after  
making the stop, the troopers searched the van.  Inside, they  
found a supply of weapons.  
The defendant, a passenger in the van, was charged with  
 
 
 
fifteen weapon-related offenses.1  Among those charges were  
two counts of felony-firearm2 and two counts of possessing a  
bomb with unlawful intent.3
 The information and amended  
1 The fifteen counts were: (1) possession of a bomb, with 
unlawful intent, MCL 750.210; MSA 28.407; (2) possession of a 
bomb, with unlawful intent; (3) felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; 
MSA 28.424(2); (4) felony-firearm; (5) carrying a concealed 
weapon, MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424; (6) CCW; (7) CCW; (8) CCW; 
(9) possession of a shortbarreled shotgun, MCL 750.224b; MSA 
28.421(2); (10) possession of a short-barreled shotgun; (11) 
possession of a “Ground Burst Simulator,” MCL 750.210; MSA 
28.407; (12) possession of a “hand grenade simulator;” (13) 
placement a pipe bomb near a building, MCL 750.208; MSA 
28.405; (14) conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, MCL 
750.157a, 750.316; MSA 28.354(1), 28.548; (15) felon in 
possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; MSA 28.421(6).  In  
addition, the prosecutor gave notice that the defendant was 
subject to an enhanced sentence as an habitual (second) 
offender, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082.  
2 In pertinent part, the statute provides:  
(1) A person who carries or has in his or her 
possession a firearm when he or she commits or 
attempts to commit a felony, except a violation of 
section 223, section 227, 227a or 230, is guilty of 
a felony, and shall be imprisoned for 2 years. 
. . .  
(2) A term of imprisonment prescribed by this 
section is in addition to the sentence imposed for 
the conviction of the felony or the attempt to 
commit 
the 
felony, 
and 
shall 
be 
served  
consecutively with and preceding any term of  
imprisonment imposed for the conviction of the 
felony or attempt to commit the felony.  [MCL 
750.227b; MSA 28.424(2).]  
In Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374, 
389-391; 280 
NW2d 
793 
(1979), 
we explained that felony-firearm 
is a separate felony offense, not a sentence enhancement 
measure.  
3 In 1995, the statute read:  
Any person who carries or possesses a bomb or 
bombshell or any article containing an explosive or 
combustible 
substance 
or 
foul, 
offensive 
or  
injurious substance or compound, with intent to use  
2  
 
information further alleged that the felony-firearm offenses  
occurred in connection with the bomb possession.4  
Near the conclusion of the trial, the jury was instructed  
in this fashion:  
[T]he defendant is charged with the crime of 
possessing a firearm at the time he committed the 
crime of possession of a bomb with unlawful intent. 
To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove 
each of the following elements beyond a reasonable 
doubt.  
First, that the defendant committed the crime 
of possession of a bomb with unlawful intent, which 
has been defined for you. 
It is not necessary, 
however, that the defendant be convicted of that 
crime.  
Second, that at the time the defendant  
committed that crime, he knowingly carried or 
possessed a firearm. It does not matter whether or  
not the gun was loaded.  
At the conclusion of its deliberations, the jury found  
the defendant guilty of all the charged offenses,5 including  
the same unlawfully against the person or property 
of other [sic], shall be guilty of a felony, 
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 
not less than two nor more than five years. [MCL 
750.210; 28.407, as enacted in 1927 PA 119.]  
The statute was substantially revised by 1998 PA 208.  
4 The information and amended information alleged that 
the defendant  
did carry or have in his/her possession a firearm, 
to-wit: a handgun, at the time he/she committed or 
attempted to commit a felony, to-wit: Possession of 
a Bomb with Unlawful Intent; contrary to MCL 
750.227b; MSA 28.424(2).  
5 Actually, the jury returned guilty verdicts on fourteen 
of the fifteen counts. 
The fifteenth count-
--felon in  
possession-
--had been separated to avoid prejudice to the 
defendant.  After the jury returned its verdict, the defendant 
pleaded guilty of that charge.  
3  
  
 
the two counts of felony-firearm and the two counts of  
possessing a bomb with unlawful intent.  
The circuit court imposed enhanced sentences on the  
defendant, who was an habitual offender.  For each count of  
possessing a bomb with unlawful intent, the court sentenced  
the defendant to serve four to seven and a half years in  
prison.  Various sentences were imposed for the other  
offenses, the longest minimum sentences being eight years for  
placing a pipe bomb near a building and for conspiracy to  
commit murder.  The court directed that the defendant serve  
two years for each count of felony-firearm.  
The 
court’s 
written 
judgment 
listed 
the 
sentences 
imposed  
for each of the fifteen counts.  It further provided that the 
felony-firearm sentences were to be consecutive to all 
thirteen of the other charges.6 
The defendant 
appealed, 
but 
the 
Court of Appeals affirmed  
his convictions.7  He now has applied to this Court for leave  
to appeal.  
II  
The defendant raises several issues, but we will address  
only one.  He says that his two felony-firearm sentences  
6 
 The two felony-firearm sentences were themselves 
concurrent. People v Sawyer, 410 Mich 531, 534-535; 302 NW2d 
534 (1981).  
7 The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the circuit 
court “for the ministerial act of issuing an amended judgment 
of 
sentence 
that 
makes 
the 
felony-firearm 
sentences  
consecutive to all of the felony sentences except the four CCW 
sentences.” Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued November 
5, 1999, reh den December 17, 1999 (Docket No. 198394).  
4  
 
 
 
should be consecutive only to the two convictions for  
possessing a bomb with unlawful intent, not to the remaining  
convictions.8  We agree, and remand this case for correction  
of the judgment of sentence.  
From the plain language of the felony-firearm statute,9  
it is evident that the Legislature intended that a felony­
firearm sentence be consecutive only to the sentence for a  
specific 
underlying 
felony.10  
Subsection 
2 
clearly 
states 
that  
the felony-firearm sentence “shall be served consecutively  
with and preceding any term of imprisonment imposed for the  
conviction of the felony or attempt to commit the felony.” It  
is evident that the emphasized language refers back to the  
predicate offense 
discussed 
in 
subsection 
1, i.e., the offense  
during which the defendant possessed a firearm. No language  
8 As indicated, the Court of Appeals agreed with him in 
part, 
noting 
that 
the 
felony-firearm 
statute 
specifically 
says 
that one cannot commit the offense of felony-firearm by 
possessing a firearm while committing CCW.  
9 The proper interpretation of a statutory provision is 
a question of law that we decide de novo. In re Investigation  
of March 1999 Riots in East Lansing, 463 Mich 378, 383; 617  
NW2d 310 (2000); People v Burgenmeyer, 461 Mich 431, 436, n 
10; 606 NW2d 645 (2000); People v Morey, 461 Mich 325, 
329-330; 603 NW2d 250 (1999).  
10 In People v Lewis, 415 Mich 443, 453; 330 NW2d 16  
(1982), we stated:  
Although the Legislature no doubt contemplated 
that a person convicted of felony-firearm would 
also have been convicted of an underlying felony, 
it made commission or the attempt to commit a 
felony and not conviction of a felony an element of 
felony-firearm.  
Obviously, a felony-firearm sentence is consecutive only when 
the defendant is also convicted of the underlying felony.  
5  
 
in 
the 
statute 
permits 
consecutive 
sentencing 
with 
convictions  
other than the predicate offense.  
In this instance, the jury found that the defendant  
possessed a firearm while he possessed two bombs with unlawful  
intent.  While it might appear obvious that the defendant also  
possessed a firearm while committing the other crimes of which  
he was convicted, neither a trial court nor an appellate court  
can supply its own findings with regard to the factual  
elements that have not been found by a jury.11  
Neither the Court of Appeals nor the prosecution has  
offered a textual analysis to support its view.  To the  
contrary, they identify a supposed statutory purpose that  
compels a favored result independent of any textual analysis.  
As we explained in People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 155-156;  
599 NW2d 102 (1999), however, the clear language of the  
statute is to be applied as written.12  
For 
these 
reasons, 
we 
affirm 
the 
defendant’s 
convictions,  
but we modify the judgment of the Court of Appeals.  We remand  
this case to the circuit court for correction of the judgment  
11 At the discretion of the prosecuting attorney, the 
complaint and the information could have listed additional 
crimes as underlying offenses in the felony-firearm count, or 
the prosecutor could have filed more separate felony-firearm 
counts.  
12 In the past, we have reached similar results by order. 
People v Carlson, 440 Mich 895; 488 NW2d 783 (1992); People v  
Johns, 434 Mich 880; 452 NW2d 207 (1990); People v Wooden, 422  
Mich 863; 365 NW2d 764 (1985); People v Embry, 417 Mich 982 
(1983); People v Littke, 417 Mich 981 (1983).  
6  
 
 
of sentence.13  Each felony-firearm sentence is consecutive  
only to the corresponding conviction for possession of a bomb  
with unlawful intent.14  MCR 7.302(F)(1).  
WEAVER, C.J., and KELLY, TAYLOR, 
CORRIGAN, YOUNG, 
and MARKMAN,  
JJ., concurred.  
CAVANAGH, J., concurred in the result only.  
13 As to all other issues raised by defendant in his 
application for leave to appeal, we deny leave because we are 
not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 
by this Court.  
14 Since the defendant began serving many of his  
concurrent sentences upon imprisonment, it may also be 
necessary for the circuit court on remand to adjust the jail 
credit.  
7  
 
People v Clark  
Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey,  
Solicitor General, Jeffrey L. Sauter, Prosecuting Attorney,  
and William M. Worden, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney [1045  
Independence 
Blvd., 
Charlotte, 
MI 
48813] 
[(517) 
543-7500, 
ext.  
265], for the people.  
State Appellate Defender (by Gary L Rogers) [3300  
Penobscot Building, 645 Griswold, Detroit, MI 48226] [(313)  
256-9833] for defendant-appellant.  
1