-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION February 14, 2017 9:10 a.m.

v No. 329502 Eaton Circuit Court ANTHONY MARK RICE, LC No. 15-020096-FH

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and O’C ONNELL and M ETER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant, Anthony Mark Rice, pleaded guilty as a fourth-offen se habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to operating or maintaining a methamphetamine labor atory, MCL 333.7401c(2)(f), and operating or maintaining a met hamphetamine laboratory near a specified location, MCL 333.7401c(2)(d). The trial court sentenced Rice below the sent encing guidelines to serve concurrent terms of 48 months’ to 35 years’ imprisonment. The prosecution appeals Rice’s sentence by leave granted. 1 We affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a Cobbs 2 agreement, Rice admitted that he bought chemicals to manufactu re methamphetamine in an apartment building. The trial court indi cated that it woul d sentence Rice to the bottom of his recommended sentencing guidelines range. Between Rice’s plea and sentencing hearing, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its decis ion in People v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015).

Rice’s sentencing guidelines recommended a range of 72 to 240 months’ imprisonment, and the assessment did not involve any judicial fact-finding. At his sentencing hearing, Rice presented evidence that he had been a model prisoner who worked in prison, participated in drug

1 People v Rice , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 11, 2016 (Docket No. 329502).

2 People v Cobbs , 443 Mich 276, 283; 505 NW2d 208 (1993) (holding that a defend ant may withdraw his or her plea if the trial court at sentencing excee ds the preliminary evaluation).-2- and alcohol rehabilitation, and did not receive misconduct tick ets. The trial court decided to depart downward from the sente ncing guidelines . It acknowledge d Rice’s prior record and the nature of the crime for which he was sentenced, but it found th at Rice’s convictions primarily involved “poisoning” himself and that giving Rice the “benefit of the doubt” would help him make a positive change in his life.

The prosecution argued that the trial court was mandated to ap ply the sentencing guidelines because Rice’s case did not involve constitutionally impermissible judicial factfinding and, therefore, Lockridge did not apply. The trial court determined that the Lockridge Court used broad language that rendered the sentencing guidelin es advisory under all circumstances, and thus that it could treat the guidelines as a dvisory in Rice’s case. The prosecution now appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo issu es of statutory interpretation. People v Williams , 475 Mich 245, 250; 716 NW2d 208 (2006). We also review de novo que stions of constitutional law. Lockridge , 498 Mich at 373.

III. ANALYSIS

The prosecution argues that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decis ion in Lockridge only renders the Legislative sentencing guidelines advisory in cases in which the defendant’s sentence involved judicial fact-finding. Because the Lockridge Court did not limit its language in such a fashion, we disagree. We conclude that the Lockridge Court rewrote MCL 769.34(2) and (3) without exception, rend ering the guidelines advisory in all cas es.

The Lockridge Court framed the issue as “whether the Michigan sentencing guid elines violate a defendant’s Sixth Ame ndment fundamental right to a ju ry trial.” Lockridge , 498 Mich at 364. In answering this question affirmatively, the Court co ncluded that

the rule from Apprendi v New Jersey , 530 US 466; 120 S Ct 2348; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), as extended by Alleyne v United States , 570 US ___; 133 S Ct 2151; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013), applies to Michigan’s sentencing guidel ines and renders them constitutionally deficient. [ Id .]

To remedy this constitutional vi olation, the Court “sever[ed] MCL 769.34(2) to the extent that it makes the sentencing guidelines range as scored on the basis of facts beyond those admitted by the defendant or found by the jury beyond a reasona ble doubt mandatory.” Id. The Court explicitly struck down MCL 769.34(3)’s requirement “that a sentencing court that departs from the applicable guidelines range must articulate a substant ial and compelling reason for that departure.” Id. at 364-365. The Court further s truck down “any part of MCL 76 9.34 or another statute [that] refers to use of the sentencing guidelines as ma ndatory or refers to departures from the guidelines . . . .” Id . at 365 n 1.

Addressing the entire scheme and system of MCL 769.34, the Lockridge Court held that the guidelines were advisory and struck down MCL 769.34(3)’s re quirement that a trial court need not articulate substantial and compelling reasons to depar t from the guidelines. It is clear-3- from this language that the Cour t drew no distinction between w hen a specific case actually applied judge-found facts and when a case did not. The Court’s language was precise and explicit, and it in no way limited its holding to cases in whic h judicial fact-finding actually occurred.

For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly h eld that the Legislative sentencing guidelines are advisory in every case, regardless of whether the case actually involves judicial fact-finding. If the Michigan Supreme Court did not i ntend such a result, it is up to that Court to clarify its previous opinion. See People v Strickland , 293 Mich App 393, 402; 810 NW2d 660 (2011) (stating that “[t]his Court is bound to follow decisions of our Supreme Court.”) 3

We affirm.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause /s/ Peter D. O’Connell /s/ Patrick M. Meter

3 The Michigan Supreme Court may very well clarify its Lockridge opinion in the near future, given that the issue of “whether MCL 769.34(2) and (3) remain i n full force and effect where the defendant’s guidelines range is not dependent on judicial fact- finding, see MCL 8.5” is presently pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. People v Steanhouse , 499 Mich 934; 879 NW2d 252 (2016).