Court Opinion

ID: 9568506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:04:27.017697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:21.589531
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I fully agree with the majority’s conclusion that a one-year jail term cannot be lawfully imposed as a condition of life probation. However, I would simply vacate the illegal sentence and not remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration of defendant’s entire sentence.
While there are several cases in which this Court and the Supreme Court have ordered a remand after finding a condition of probation to be unlawful, I do not believe that such a result is the only appropriate remedy. In other cases, this Court has simply vacated the illegal condition. See, e.g., People v Higgins, 22 Mich App 479; 177 NW2d 716 (1970). See also People v Carl Smith, 69 Mich App 247, 249; 244 NW2d 433 (1976), where this Court acknowledged that the mere fact that one condition of probation is found to be invalid does not necessarily render the whole sentencing order invalid. I do not agree with the suggestion in People v Gauntlett, 134 Mich App 737, 753-754; 352 NW2d 310 (1984), that the decision of the Supreme Court in People v Coles, 417 Mich 523; 339 NW2d *263440 (1983), in any way restricts the options available to this Court to remedy the imposition of an illegal term of probation. Remedies are dependent almost exclusively upon the facts of each case and frequently vary from case to case. It would be an unwise policy decision to establish broad rules of law restricting the scope of permissible remedies. This Court is broadly empowered to grant relief "as the case may require.” MCR 7.216(A)(7).
In the instant case, the trial court had only two options, a minimum prison term of not less than ten years without parole, MCL 333.7401(3); MSA 14.15(7401)(3), or life probation, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iii). The disparity between these two alternatives is so great that a strong presumption of vindictiveness would arise if the trial court decides on remand to impose the ten-year minimum sentence. In my opinion, the appropriate remedy in the instant case would be to vacate the one-year jail term and otherwise affirm defendant’s sentence. I would follow People v Albane, 160 Mich App 331; 408 NW2d 146 (1987).