Court Opinion

ID: 9579783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:58:33.69414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:45.941527
License: Public Domain

B. L. Howard, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent with regard to the limited issue whether consecutive sentencing is required on the basis of "another felony” when a probation violation is involved. Consecutive sentencing may be imposed if specifically authorized by statute, People v Hadley, 199 Mich App 96, 101-103; 501 NW2d 219 (1993), lv gtd 446 Mich 851 (1994). Generally, in applying the rules of statutory construction, this Court not only should give effect to the intent expressed in the words of the statute, but also should consider the general purpose sought to be accomplished or the evil that is sought to be remedied. People v Chambers, 430 Mich 217, 222; 421 NW2d 903 (1988).
The Legislature specifically provided for consecutive sentencing for major drug offenses that are committed while another felony is pending. The Court held in People v Malone, 177 Mich App 393, 401; 442 NW2d 658 (1989), that an offense is not pending if probation has been ordered. Furthermore, the Legislature could have easily expressed the need for consecutive sentencing in this situation, but did not do so. The Court should give effect to the intent expressed in the words of the statute. Hadley, supra, p 101.
The decision of the trial court should be reversed in part and affirmed in part. The trial court erred in sentencing defendant to concurrent sentences for the 1990 charges by failing to follow the mandate of MCL 333.7401(3); MSA 14.15(7401)(3). However, the trial court did not err in ordering that the sentences for the probation violation run *262concurrently with the sentence imposed by Judge Fullerton, because the statute makes no provision for consecutive sentences in the event of a probation violation.