Case Name: PEOPLE v. TYSON (AFTER REMAND)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1993-04-05
Citations: 199 Mich. App. 62
Docket Number: Docket No. 128833
Parties: PEOPLE v TYSON (AFTER REMAND)
Judges: Before: Jansen, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Corrigan, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 199
Pages: 62–66

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v TYSON (AFTER REMAND)
Docket No. 128833.
Submitted June 15, 1992, at Detroit.
Decided April 5, 1993, at 9:10 a.m.
Craig G. Tyson was convicted in the Detroit Recorder’s Court, Leonard Townsend, J., of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and assault with intent to commit murder, and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 150 to 300 years. The Court of Appeals, Gribbs and R.R. Lamb, JJ. (Shepherd, P.J., dissenting in part), affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam, decided March 25, 1988 (Docket No. 86431). The Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, reversed in part, vacated the sentences, and remanded the case to the Recorder’s Court for resentencing in accordance with People v Moore, 432 Mich 311 (1989). 433 Mich 852 (1989). On remand, the Recorder’s Court orally resentenced the defendant to 75 to 100 years for the assault conviction and to 75 to 150 years for the criminal sexual conduct conviction. However, conflicting orders issued by the Recorder’s Court indicated that the sentences were both either 75 to 150 years or 75 to 100 years. The Court of Appeals, retaining jurisdiction, granted the defendant leave to appeal and, in an unpublished opinion per curiam, decided September 24, 1992 (Docket No. 128833) by Jansen, P.J., and Corrigan J. (Michael J. Kelly, J., dissenting), remanded to the Recorder’s Court for clarification of the maximum sentences and articulation of the reasons for departure from the ranges recommended by the sentencing guidelines. On second remand, the Recorder’s Court resentenced the defendant to terms of 66 to 100 years, but issued an amended judgment of sentence providing for terms of 75 to 150 years.
After remand, the Court of Appeals held:
1. The sentences of 66 to 100 years do not violate the two-thirds rule of People v Tanner, 387 Mich 683 (1972).
2. The Recorder’s Court articulated sufficient reasons for the sentences imposed.
3. Remand is required for correction of the amended judgment of sentence so that it accurately reflects that sentences of 66 to 100 years were imposed on October 16, 1992.
Affirmed and remanded.
Michael J. Kelly, J., dissenting, stated that the sentences are inappropriate and markedly disparate from a codefendant’s sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the same criminal acts and that the case should be remanded for resentencing by a different judge.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, John D. O’Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Ernest O. Hornung, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by P.E. Bennett), for the defendant on appeal.

Opinion:
after remand
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Corrigan, JJ.
Jansen, J.
On September 24, 1992, this Court issued its opinion in this matter remanding the case to the trial court for "clarification of the maximum sentence imposed upon defendant, and for articulation, both on the record and on the sir, of reasons supporting the departure from the recommended guidelines range." We retained jurisdiction for these purposes only.
On remand, the trial court resentenced defendant to terms of 66 to 100 years. These sentences do not violate the two-thirds rule of People v Tanner, 387 Mich 683; 199 NW2d 202 (1972). Additionally, the trial court articulated sufficient reasons for the sentences imposed. People v Fleming, 428 Mich 408; 410 NW2d 266 (1987); People v Johnson, 187 Mich App 621; 468 NW2d 307 (1991).
However, we note that the amended judgment of sentence provides for each of the crimes a sentence of 75 to 150 years. Additionally, the amended judgment indicates that defendant was sentenced on "8-22-89." Because the amended judgment of sentence does not reflect the actual sentences imposed on resentencing, we remand the case to the trial court for the entry of a corrected amended judgment of sentence reflecting that on October 16, 1992, the trial court sentenced defendant to terms of 66 to 100 years' imprisonment. In all other respects, we affirm.
Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Corrigan, J., concurred.