Opinion ID: 836201
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: consecutive sentencing and parole eligibility

Text: After awarding jail credit to a defendant who was incarcerated for committing a new offense while on parole, it becomes necessary to examine MCL 768.7a(2), which establishes a consecutive sentencing requirement as follows: If a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a felony committed while the person was on parole from a sentence for a previous offense, the term of imprisonment imposed for the later offense shall begin to run at the expiration of the remaining portion of the term of imprisonment imposed for the previous offense. The pivotal component of this provision is that a defendant's term of imprisonment imposed for the later offense shall begin to run at the expiration of the remaining portion of the term of imprisonment imposed for the previous offense. At first glance, awarding jail credit for a defendant's second sentence before he has completed the remaining portion of his first sentence appears inconsistent with the consecutive sentencing scheme established by MCL 768.7a(2). Yet, upon a closer evaluation of how the remaining portion phrase in MCL 768.7a(2) relates to MCL 769.11b, this potential conflict is alleviated. In Wayne Co. Prosecutor v. Dep't of Corrections, 451 Mich. 569, 584, 548 N.W.2d 900 (1996), this Court interpreted MCL 768.7a(2) and stated: We conclude that the remaining portion clause of [MCL 768.7a(2)] requires the offender to serve at least the combined minimums of his sentences, plus whatever portion, between the minimum and the maximum, of the earlier sentence that the Parole Board may, because the parolee violated the terms of parole, require him to serve. As an initial matter, it is important to distinguish the phrase unexpired portion, as used in MCL 791.238(2), from remaining portion, as used in MCL 768.7a(2). The unexpired portion of a sentence is the time that remains on a defendant's entire indeterminate sentence and that can be discharged after the defendant successfully completes parole. [5] The remaining portion of a defendant's original sentence, on the other hand, represents the time that a defendant who violates his parole would otherwise have to serve in order to be eligible for parole once again on his original sentence if he had not been sentenced for a new consecutive sentence, which is why Wayne Co. Prosecutor described the remaining portion as the period of time that the Parole Board may, because the parolee violated the terms of parole, require him to serve. Thus, when the Board determines the remaining portion of a defendant's original sentence, it is essentially undertaking a discretionary decision about when the defendant would have been eligible for parole on his original sentence given the violation he committed while on parole. In other words, MCL 768.7a(2) establishes a sensible requirement that a defendant who violates his parole should first have to serve out whatever remaining portion he would have to serve on the unexpired portion of his original sentence before the new minimum term on the second offense can begin to run. Such a requirement ensures that a defendant will serve at least all the minimum time for each individual consecutive sentence that was imposed. Therefore, before a defendant who is unsuccessful in completing his parole because he committed a subsequent crime can begin serving his second sentence, he must first serve out the remaining portion of his first sentence, which, as noted by Wayne Co. Prosecutor, must be established by the Board's affirmative determination of how long the defendant must serve on that sentence. [6] Wayne Co. Prosecutor, 451 Mich. at 582, 548 N.W.2d 900 (observing that the Board must make such a determination, given the Court's conclusion that the Legislature did not intend [MCL 768.7a(2)] to repeal all discretion held by the Parole Board). Further, because, the defendant cannot begin serving his second sentence until he has completed the remaining portion of his original sentence, awarding jail credit in addition to allocating the time served to the original sentence would allow for double-counting of the time served, which would result in a concurrent sentence, in violation of MCL 768.7a(2). Thus, a defendant who violates his parole by committing a new crime can only receive credit toward one sentence, and because the jail credit statute requires that credit be given toward the new sentence, a defendant cannot also have the time served allocated to his original sentence in this situation. Of particular importance to this analysis, and because jail credit must be awarded as a component of the second offense, which cannot begin to run until the remaining portion of the first sentence is completed, the awarded jail credit cannot actually be applied until the second sentence is commenced. By not immediately applying such credit, the new sentence will be suspended until the defendant serves the remaining portion of his original sentence. Once the time remaining on that sentence has been completed, the new sentence begins and the previously awarded jail credit is then applied. Thus, by requiring the defendant to serve the entire remaining portion of his original offense before jail credit is applied to his new sentence, the consecutive sentencing regime in MCL 768.7a(2) is given full effect. Continuing with the earlier hypothetical example, recall that the defendant has served 6 years of his original sentence and, while on parole, is subsequently arrested for committing a new crime. Assume that the defendant now spends exactly 1 year in jail before being sentenced to another term of 5 to 10 years for his new offense. Pursuant to MCL 769.11b, that 1 year is awarded as jail credit once the defendant has been sentenced for the new offense and will ultimately be applied toward the second sentence, which leaves the total amount of time already served on his first sentence at 6 years. After the conviction, the Board is then required to make an affirmative determination as to whether the defendant is required to serve any remaining portion on his original sentence, which I will presume for purposes of this example is an additional 2 years. Therefore, the defendant must now serve another 2 years on his first sentence after he has been sentenced for the new offense, and none of the time spent between arrest and sentencing will be credited toward his original sentence. After the defendant serves the additional 2 years on his original sentence, he will have served a total of 8 years on the first sentence (5 years in prison + 1 year on parole + 2 years in prison after his new conviction). It is at this point that the defendant will be considered to have served the remaining portion of his original sentence and can begin serving his new sentence. Upon beginning his new sentence, the defendant's jail credit is applied. Thus, once the second sentence begins, the defendant will be considered to have served 1 year toward the new 5- to 10-year sentence. At this point, it becomes necessary to determine the defendant's new parole-eligibility date. For calculating such a date when there is a newly imposed consecutive sentence, MCL 791.234(3) [7] provides: If a prisoner other than a prisoner subject to disciplinary time is sentenced for consecutive terms, whether received at the same time or at any time during the life of the original sentence, the parole board has jurisdiction over the prisoner for purposes of parole when the prisoner has served the total time of the added minimum terms....[ [8] ] The maximum terms of the sentences shall be added to compute the new maximum term under this subsection, and discharge shall be issued only after the total of the maximum sentences has been served ... unless the prisoner is paroled and discharged upon satisfactory completion of the parole. As is clear, a defendant who is subject to consecutive terms is now liable for a new maximum term, which is simply calculated by adding the old and new maximums. However, the language used to describe the amount of time that a defendant must spend on his minimum terms is notably different from that used to determine the new maximum term. More specifically, MCL 791.234(3) provides that the defendant must serve the total time of the added minimum terms, not that a new minimum term is created. This difference is important because, when the statute is read in conjunction with the consecutive sentencing statute, MCL 768.7a(2), the defendant is not required to serve a new minimum term, but has to serve the total time of the combined minimum terms. Significantly, the minimum term for the new offense cannot be served until the new sentence begins to run, [9] which means jail credit towards the second sentence's minimum term will only be applied after (a) the Parole Board makes its determination about the remaining portion of the first sentence; and (b) the defendant serves the remaining portion of his first sentence. [10] Once the defendant serves this remaining portion, and then serves an amount of time equal to the minimum term on the second sentence, which includes any jail credit, the defendant will have served the total time of the added minimums. At that point, he becomes eligible for parole. In the hypothetical, the defendant's new maximum term is 20 years (10 years for the original maximum + 10 years for the new maximum). The total time of his added minimum terms is 10 years (5 years for the original minimum + 5 years for the new minimum). The defendant has now served a total time of 9 years on his new maximum (5 years on his original minimum + 1 year on parole + 2 years of the remaining portion of his original sentence + 1 year of jail credit toward his new sentence) and a total of 6 years toward the total of his added minimum terms (5 years on his first minimum term + 1 year jail credit). Thus, the defendant would be eligible for parole 4 years from the date that his new sentence begins to run (10 years total minimums6 years served on the total minimums).