Case Name: PEOPLE v. MOORE
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1979-07-10
Citations: 91 Mich. App. 319
Docket Number: Docket No. 78-4651
Parties: PEOPLE v MOORE
Judges: Before: Danhof, C.J., and N. J. Kaufman and D. C. Riley, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 91
Pages: 319–327

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v MOORE
Docket No. 78-4651.
Submitted April 17, 1979, at Detroit.
Decided July 10, 1979.
Clarence Moore was convicted in 1967 of armed robbery and assault with intent to commit murder and was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Moore appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. 13 Mich App 320 (1968). Moore later filed a petition in the Court of Appeals seeking to have his sentences set aside, which was denied by the Court’s order of February 9, 1977. Moore filed a complaint for superintending control in the Michigan Supreme Court, which treated the complaint for superintending control as an application for leave to appeal; and, in lieu of leave to appeal, that Court remanded for resentencing because the record disclosed that counsel was not present at sentencing and presence of counsel had not been waived. 402 Mich 805 (1977). On remand, the Detroit Recorders Court, Joseph A. Gillis, J., heard arguments of counsel and a statement by defendant as to the nature of defendant’s activities while in prison; however, no updated presentence report was prepared. Defendant was again sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Defendant appeals. Held:
Remand for resentencing is mandated by the failure of the sentencing court to secure an updated presentence report, including information as to the defendant’s conduct while in prison, prior to resentencing.
Danhof, C.J., dissented. He would hold that resentencing is not mandated by the failure of the trial court to secure an updated presentence report, since the record clearly indicates that the sentencing court was adequately apprised of defendant’s background. Upon resentencing following a determination that the prior sentence was invalid the sentencing court may consider the defendant’s behavior in prison in determining the new sentence. The Court of Appeals is not free to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the weight to be given to those factors or as to the propriety of the particular sentence. He would affirm.
References for Points in Headnotes
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 527, 529, 569 et seq.
Absence of counsel for accused at time of sentence as requiring vacation thereof or other relief. 20 ALR2d 1240.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 938, 973.
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Sentences — Resentencing ■— Updated Presentence Report •— Prison Behavior.
Remand for resentencing is mandated by the failure of the sentencing court to secure an undated presentence report, including information as to defendant’s conduct while in prison, prior to resentencing in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court remanding for resentencing because of the lack of counsel at the original sentencing.
Dissent by Danhop, C.J.
2. Criminal Law — Sentences — Resentencing — Updated Presentence Report.
Resentencing is not mandated because of the failure of the sentencing court to secure an updated presentence report prior to resentencing in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court remanding for resentencing because of lack of counsel at the original sentencing where the record indicates that the sentencing court on remand was adequately apprised by defense counsel and the defendant of the defendant’s background.
3. Appeal and Error — Criminal Law — Sentences.
The Court of Appeals is not free to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the weight accorded to any factor in defendant’s background or as to what is a proper sentence for a particular defendant.
4. Criminal Law — Sentences — Resentencing — Commutation of Sentences — Executive Power — Prison Behavior.
A sentencing court, in resentencing on remand by the Supreme Court for lack of assistance of counsel at the original sentencing, may consider defendant’s behavior while in prison under the original invalid sentence and may modify that previous sentence without usurping the executive branch’s exclusive prerogative to commute or modify sentences, since the vacation of the original sentence rendered it void and the sentence on resentencing is not an impermissible modification of a prior valid sentence.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Paul G. Bruno, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Jack J. Kraizman, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Danhof, C.J., and N. J. Kaufman and D. C. Riley, JJ.

Opinion:
N. J. Kaufman, J.
We accept the facts as presented by Chief Judge Danhof in his dissent and generally agree with his presentation of the law. Additionally, for the reasons stated in the dissent, we specifically note our disagreement with People v Allen, 79 Mich App 100; 261 NW2d 225 (1977). However, under the instant facts, we feel compelled to remand the case for resentencing and direct the trial judge to secure an updated presentence report prior to resentencing. See my dissent in People v Triplett, 91 Mich App 82; 283 NW2d 658 (1979).
When the Supreme Court remanded this case for resentencing because defendant was not assisted by counsel at the original sentencing, they meant just that. At the resentencing, defendant was entitled to an updated presentence report and an opportunity for allocution. Those steps were necessary to insure that the trial judge was fully and accurately acquainted with defendant's background. See MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144, People v Brown, 393 Mich 174; 224 NW2d 38 (1974), People v Lee, 391 Mich 618, 634-635; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McFarlin, 389 Mich 557, 574; 208 NW2d 504 (1973).
Defense counsel and defendant presented some evidence of defendant's prison conduct to the re-sentencing court, but it is not at all clear that the court considered this information in resentencing defendant to the same prison terms he had received more than 10 years before. In light of the court's statement that defendant was being sentenced nunc pro tunc, it is possible that the judge ignored defendant's prison conduct altogether. An updated presentence report would have assured due consideration of defendant's prison conduct.
Remanded for resentencing.
D. C. Riley, J., concurred.