Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

Order 

December 18, 2012

145142

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145142

COA: 302335

Oakland CC: 2008-221029-FH

BRIAN JAMES VEILLEUX,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On November 14, 2012, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave 

to appeal the March 29, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, 

the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to 

appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case 

to the Oakland Circuit Court for it to correct the judgment of sentence by striking those 

provisions making the sentences for contempt consecutive to each other and consecutive 

to defendant’s sentence for the underlying felony. “A consecutive sentence may be 

imposed only if specifically authorized by statute.” People v Lee, 233 Mich App 403, 

405 (1999). Contrary to the lower courts’ holdings, MCL 768.7a(1) does not specifically 

authorize the consecutive sentences imposed here. MCL 768.7a(1) only applies to “[a] 

person who is incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution in this state, or who 

escapes from such an institution.” When defendant committed the contempts of court at 

issue here, he was not at the time incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution and he 

was not an escapee. Finally, we are not persuaded that defendant waived the issue of 

whether his contempt sentences were properly imposed consecutively to each other by 

not raising it when he was originally sentenced. After defendant was originally 

sentenced, the order appointing appellate counsel only referenced defendant’s drug 

sentence; it did not mention the contempt sentences and appellate counsel withdrew from 

the case without addressing the contempt sentences. The ex parte motion to rescind the 

order appointing him does not suggest that he discussed anything involving the contempt 

sentences with defendant. However, after defendant was sentenced for his probation 

violation and the contempt sentences were reimposed, the order appointing new appellate 

counsel did mention the contempt sentences, and defendant’s attorney did challenge such 

sentences. Given these circumstances, we hold that the challenges to the contempt 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 18, 2012

t1217

2

sentences have been properly preserved. Because we hold that the trial court erred in 

imposing consecutive sentences under MCL 768.7a(1),1 and because defendant has 

already served his concurrent sentences, it is unnecessary for us to address whether under 

the circumstances of this case the trial court acted properly in holding defendant in 

contempt multiple times.

 

1 Because the lower courts relied on MCL 768.7a(1) in imposing the consecutive 

sentences, we need not address whether another authority, statutory or otherwise, exists 

for the imposition of consecutive sentences in this case.