Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

People of MI v Charles Duane Finch

Docket No. 346412

LC No. 76-009004-FH

Brock A. Swartzle 

Presiding Judge

Jane E. Markey 

James Robert Redford 

Judges

The Court GRANTS the motion for reconsideration and VACATES this Court's opinion 

issued January 21, 2020. A new opinion is attached to this order. 

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

March 17, 2020
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 17, 2020

v No. 346412

Jackson Circuit Court

CHARLES DUANE FINCH, LC No. 76-009004-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

ON RECONSIDERATION

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and MARKEY and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment of sentence entered following resentencing for his 1977 

convictions of first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), and conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder, MCL 750.157a, offenses he committed when 16 years old. On May 11, 1977, the 

trial court sentenced defendant to life without parole (LWOP) for both offenses.1

Because the United States Supreme Court in Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460; 132 S Ct. 

2455; 183 L Ed2d 407 (2012), held unconstitutional the imposition of mandatory LWOP sentences 

on juveniles, the circuit court held a lengthy hearing on September 19, 2018. On September 26, 

2018, the circuit court entered its judgment of sentence imposing a term of 40 to 60 years’ 

incarceration with credit for 15,404 days on both counts.

After entry of the sentence, the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) 

communicated with the sentencing court regarding resentencing defendant on the conspiracy count 

and the circuit court then on its own initiative scheduled and held another resentencing hearing on 

 

1 Our Supreme Court in People v Jahner, 433 Mich 490; 446 NW2d 151 (1989), held that 

defendants convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder are eligible for parole 

consideration and retroactively applied its holding to defendants who received mandatory LWOP 

sentences for such conspiracy convictions.
-2-

October 15, 2018, after which it issued an opinion and order amending defendant’s judgment of 

sentence to a term of 40 to 60 years on Count 1, felony murder; and life on Count 3, conspiracy to 

commit first-degree murder.

In an unpublished opinion per curiam, we affirmed the circuit court’s judgment of sentence 

following its resentencing of defendant on his conspiracy conviction. See People v Finch, 

unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 21, 2020 (Docket No. 346412). 

Defendant moved for this Court’s reconsideration of its opinion on the ground that our Supreme 

Court’s order in People v Turner, ___ Mich ___, ____; 936 NW2d 827 (2019), ruled that this 

Court erred by ruling that MCL 769.25a does not allow resentencing of a defendant on concurrent 

sentences and held that, “at a Miller resentencing, the trial court may exercise its discretion to 

resentence a defendant on a concurrent sentence if it finds that the sentence was based on a legal 

misconception that the defendant was required to serve a mandatory sentence without parole on 

the greater offense.” We granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration.

In light of our Supreme Court’s ruling in Turner, we vacate our January 21, 2020 opinion 

and remand to the sentencing court for its determination whether defendant’s concurrent LWOP 

sentence on his conspiracy conviction, which was later converted to a life with the possibility of 

parole by People v Jahner, 433 Mich 490; 446 NW2d 151 (1989), was based on a legal 

misconception and whether it resentenced defendant under the misconception that it lacked 

discretion to resentence defendant on that conviction.

If on remand the circuit court determines that defendant’s conspiracy conviction was based 

on a legal misconception that it lacked discretion to resentence defendant on that conviction, it 

should vacate his sentence on his conspiracy conviction and resentence defendant on that 

conviction. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ James Robert Redford