-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: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and O’CONNELL and METER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant, Anthony Mark Rice, pleaded guilty as a fourth-offense habitual offender, 

MCL 769.12, to operating or maintaining a methamphetamine laboratory, MCL 333.7401c(2)(f), 

and operating or maintaining a methamphetamine laboratory near a specified location, MCL 

333.7401c(2)(d). The trial court sentenced Rice below the sentencing 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 Cobbs2

 agreement, Rice admitted that he bought chemicals to manufacture 

methamphetamine in an apartment building. The trial court indicated that it would sentence Rice 

to the bottom of his recommended sentencing guidelines range. Between Rice’s plea and 

sentencing hearing, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its decision 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1 People v Rice, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 11, 2016 (Docket No. 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 defendant may 

withdraw his or her plea if the trial court at sentencing exceeds the preliminary evaluation). 
-2- 

and alcohol rehabilitation, and did not receive misconduct tickets. The trial court decided to 

depart downward from the sentencing guidelines. It acknowledged Rice’s prior record and the 

nature of the crime for which he was sentenced, but it found that 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 apply 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 guidelines advisory under all 

circumstances, and thus that it could treat the guidelines as advisory in Rice’s case. The 

prosecution now appeals. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 This Court reviews de novo issues of statutory interpretation. People v Williams, 475 

Mich 245, 250; 716 NW2d 208 (2006). We also review de novo questions of constitutional law. 

Lockridge, 498 Mich at 373. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 The prosecution argues that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision 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, rendering the guidelines advisory in all cases. 

 The Lockridge Court framed the issue as “whether the Michigan sentencing guidelines 

violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment fundamental right to a jury trial.” Lockridge, 498 Mich 

at 364. In answering this question affirmatively, the Court concluded 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 guidelines and renders 

them constitutionally deficient. [Id.] 

 To remedy this constitutional violation, 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 reasonable 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 substantial and compelling reason for that 

departure.” Id. at 364-365. The Court further struck down “any part of MCL 769.34 or another 

statute [that] refers to use of the sentencing guidelines as mandatory 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 requirement that a trial court 

need not articulate substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the guidelines. It is clear 
-3- 

from this language that the Court drew no distinction between when 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 which judicial fact-finding actually 

occurred. 

 For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly held 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 intend 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 in 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).