Case Name: PEOPLE v. DUKES
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1993-03-02
Citations: 198 Mich. App. 569
Docket Number: Docket No. 131607
Parties: PEOPLE v DUKES
Judges: Before: Brennan, P.J., and Cavanagh and Corrigan, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 198
Pages: 569–571

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v DUKES
Docket No. 131607.
Submitted January 19, 1993, at Lansing.
Decided March 2, 1993, at 9:35 a.m.
Leave to appeal sought.
Derrick Dukes was convicted by a jury in the Genesee Circuit Court, Thomas C. Yeotis, J., of an unarmed robbery committed while serving time in the county jail as part of a sentence of probation for an unrelated offense. The defendant then pleaded guilty of being an habitual offender and was sentenced to 10 to 22Vi years’ imprisonment, to be served after the completion of the jail term. The defendant appealed, claiming that the prison sentence should have been concurrent with the jail term.
The Court of Appeals held:
Pursuant to MCL 768.7a(l); MSA 28.1030(11(1), a term of imprisonment in a penal or reformatory institution imposed as the sentence for an offense committed by a person already incarcerated in such an institution must commence at the expiration of the prior term of imprisonment. A county jail, when utilized in the execution of a sentence, is a penal institution for purposes of the statute.
Affirmed.
Sentences — Consecutive Sentencing.
A term of imprisonment in a penal or reformatory institution imposed for an offense committed while the defendant was serving time in a county jail as part of a sentence of probation for an unrelated offense must commence at the expiration of the jail term (MCL 768.7a[l]; MSA 28.1030[1][1]).
References
Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 552, 553.
See ALR Index under Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Robert E. Weiss, Prosecuting Attorney, Donald A. Kuebler, Chief, Appellate Division, and Gladys L. Christopherson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Joseph J. Farah, for the defendant on appeal.
Before: Brennan, P.J., and Cavanagh and Corrigan, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of unarmed robbery. MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798. He subsequently pleaded guilty of being an habitual felony offender, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082, and was sentenced to a consecutive prison term of not less than 10 nor more than 22 V% years. In this appeal, brought as of right, defendant claims that the trial court imposed a consecutive term of imprisonment without statutory authority. We disagree and affirm.
The purpose of the consecutive sentencing statute is to deter persons convicted of one crime from committing other crimes by removing the security of concurrent sentencing. The statute should be construed liberally in order to achieve the deterrent effect intended by the Legislature. People v Weatherford, 193 Mich App 115, 118; 483 NW2d 924 (1992).
MCL 768.7a(l); MSA 28.1030(1X1), provides:
A person who is incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution in this state, or who escapes from such an institution, and who commits a crime during that incarceration or escape which is punishable by imprisonment in a penal or reformatory institution in this state shall, upon conviction of that crime, be sentenced as provided by law. The term of imprisonment imposed for the crime shall begin to run at the expiration of the term or terms of imprisonment which the person is serving or has become liable to serve in a penal or reformatory institution in this state.
A county jail, when utilized in the execution of a sentence, is a penal institution. People v Sheridan, 141 Mich App 770, 772-773; 367 NW2d 450 (1985).
In this case, the defendant was in the county jail as a term of probation when he committed the crime of unarmed robbery. Consequently, we believe that the trial court had the statutory authority to impose a consecutive sentence because defendant was incarcerated in a penal institution when he committed the offense.
Affirmed.