Opinion ID: 845996
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: intermediate sanction cells

Text: If the trial court had not entered a score for OVs 1, 2, and 3, defendant's OV level would have dropped to zero. This would have moved him to the B-I cell. The B-I cell provides a sentencing range of zero to 11 months' imprisonment for a second-offense habitual offender. MCL 777.21(3)(a) and 777.65. Because its upper limit is under 18 months, the B-I cell is referred to as an intermediate sanction cell. MCL 769.34(4)(a) provides: If the upper limit of the recommended minimum sentence range for a defendant determined under the sentencing guidelines set forth in chapter XVII is 18 months or less, the court shall impose an intermediate sanction unless the court states on the record a substantial and compelling reason to sentence the individual to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections. An intermediate sanction may include a jail term that does not exceed the upper limit of the recommended minimum sentence range or 12 months, whichever is less. MCL 769.31(b) further defines intermediate sanction: Intermediate sanction means probation or any sanction, other than imprisonment in a state prison or state reformatory, that may lawfully be imposed. Intermediate sanction includes, but is not limited to, 1 or more of the following: ( i ) Inpatient or outpatient drug treatment or participation in a drug treatment court under chapter 10A of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.1060 to 600.1082. ( ii ) Probation with any probation conditions required or authorized by law. ( iii ) Residential probation. ( iv ) Probation with jail. ( v ) Probation with special alternative incarceration. ( vi ) Mental health treatment. ( vii ) Mental health or substance abuse counseling. ( viii ) Jail. ( ix ) Jail with work or school release. ( x ) Jail, with or without authorization for day parole under 1962 PA 60, MCL 801.251 to 801.258. ( xi ) Participation in a community corrections program. ( xii ) Community service. ( xiii ) Payment of a fine. ( xiv ) House arrest. ( xv ) Electronic monitoring. When one reads these statutes together, it becomes apparent that intermediate sanction cells have a highly unusual role in Michigan's sentencing guidelines scheme. Once a defendant's minimum sentencing range falls within those cells, the guidelines no longer are concerned with the person's minimum sentence. Instead, under MCL 769.34(4)(a), the guidelines set the maximum sentence to which the defendant may be sentenced. That maximum is either the upper limit of the range of the recommended minimum sentence or 12 months in jail, whichever is shorter. The guidelines statutes do not permit a court to sentence to prison a defendant fitting within the intermediate sanction cells. The court is required to impose a maximum term of 12 months or less, unless it can state substantial and compelling reasons for a longer sentence. MCL 769.34(4)(a). In this case, the defendant's maximum sentence would have been 11 months in jail if the trial judge had not affixed a score to OVs 1, 2, and 3. By scoring the OVs after making judicial findings of fact, the judge moved defendant out of the intermediate sanction cell into a straddle cell. By that process, the judge sentenced defendant to a higher maximum sentence than he would have been able to on the basis of the jury verdict and defendant's criminal history alone. And the judge scored the OVs after making his own findings of fact, findings not made by the jury. It is under this setting that I address the applicability of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely. [7]