Opinion ID: 831420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the majority's misconstruction creates an inconsistency

Text: Despite the obvious and clear language of MCL 750.520f(1), the majority has inexplicably created its own alternative statute. The majority has similarly deviated from the obvious and clear language of MCL 769.34(2)(a) and created a new, but unexplained, statutory scheme for mandatory minimum sentences. The majority determines that an absolute term of 5 years is the mandatory minimum for a recidivist sex offender under MCL 750.520f(1). However, the majority also claims that a sentencing court departs from the guidelines when it sentences a defendant to a 5-year minimum term if the lower limit of the defendant's guidelines range is calculated at more than 5 years. [13] This is entirely contrary to MCL 769.34(2)(a), which expressly states that [i]mposing a mandatory minimum sentence is not a departure under this section.  [14] Now the majority compels the sentencing court to justify as a departure a minimum sentence that is excepted from the statutory sentencing guidelines in the first instance. The problem with the majority's analysis is this: MCL 769.34(2)(a) specifically provides that the guidelines are not controlling here; rather, the guidelines defer to another statute that includes a mandatory minimum sentence. Yet the majority insists on reverting to the guidelines despite the Legislature's clear directive to the contrary and declines to provide any statutory support for this decision. [15] Imposing a 10-year minimum sentence for a recidivist sex offender is not a departure from the legislative sentencing guidelines because it is a mandatory minimum sentence [16] of at least 5 years as provided in MCL 750.520f(1). Accordingly, I dissent and would instead affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. MAURA D. CORRIGAN, J., agrees.