Court Opinion

ID: 9722997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:59:45.233572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:43.684320
License: Public Domain

Sawyer, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
*13Defendant argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to resentence him. I disagree.
Once a trial court has imposed a valid sentence, that sentence may not be set aside and a new sentence imposed. People v Whalen, 412 Mich 166, 169; 312 NW2d 638 (1981). However, an invalid sentence may be set aside and a valid one imposed, subject to the defendant’s right to receive credit for any time served on the invalid sentence. People v Dorsey, 107 Mich App 789, 792; 310 NW2d 244 (1981). However, a trial court’s authority to resentence depends on the invalidity of the original sentence.
In the instant case, defendant’s first sentence was invalid because it fell outside the statutory limitation on the sentencing judge’s discretion. The exclusive authority for determining the appropriate length of sentence for each crime is vested in the Legislature. People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 538; 339 NW2d 440 (1983); In re Callahan, 348 Mich 77, 80; 81 NW2d 669 (1957). A sentencing court’s discretion in imposing a particular sentence is therefore limited to acting within the parameters expressed in the statute. Coles, supra at 540, citing Whalen, supra.
At the time of defendant’s sentencing, the only authorized sentences for a defendant convicted of delivery of more than 50 grams but less than 225 grams of cocaine were a prison term of at least 10 years in length, but less than 20 years, or probation for defendant’s lifetime. MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iii). The Legislature further limited the possibility of altering a defendant’s sentence under the statute by precluding defendant’s eligibility for parole or suspension of his sentence before the expiration of the mandatory term. MCL 333.7401(3); MSA 14.15(740l)(3). Moreover, should a defendant re*14ceive the alternative, life probation, such probation may be terminated only by revocation and imposition of the minimum prison term. MCL 771.2(3); MSA 28.1132.1
Because defendant’s original sentence did not conform to the statutory mandate, that sentence was invalid. The trial court thus had jurisdiction to impose the instant sentence as defendant’s first valid sentence.
Defendant next contends that, because he was discharged from the original sentence before being resentenced, the new sentence violates defendant’s right to protection from double jeopardy. US Const, Ams V, XIV; Const 1963, art 1, § 15. However, substituting a valid sentence for an invalid sentence does not constitute double jeopardy, even if the invalid sentence has been served. Bozza v United States, 330 US 160; 67 S Ct 645; 91 L Ed 818 (1947); In re Pardee, 327 Mich 13, 18; 41 NW2d 463 (1950); People v Corlin, 95 Mich App 740; 291 NW2d 188 (1980). Moreover, pursuant to MCL 333.7401(3); MSA 14.15(7401(3), defendant was not eligible for parole and was not properly subjected to the jurisdiction of the parole board before serving the minimum sentence imposed. Defendant may not base his claim of double jeopardy on the apparently unlawful actions of the parole board concerning defendant’s invalid sentence.
Defendant next argues that the trial court violated his right to due process because it punished him for appealing his conviction by imposing a term of life probation. Assuming, without deciding, *15that defendant received a harsher sentence, his argument is still without merit.
In a case where the original sentence is invalid, a defendant may not use his original sentence as a guideline for attacking the current, valid sentence. People v Gauntlett, 152 Mich App 397, 401-402; 394 NW2d 437 (1986). Additionally, we find no evidence in the record to support a claim that the resentencing court intended to punish defendant for exercising his right to appeal. The resentencing court’s comments reflect an appreciation for, and approval of, defendant’s exemplary behavior. The court expressed its belief that this was an "unfortunate case.” However, because of the original error, and defendant’s exercising his right to appeal, he has actually spent less time incarcerated for this offense than if a valid prison sentence had originally been imposed.
Defendant next asserts that his resentencing violates the doctrine of separation of powers, because it interferes with the Governor’s power to grant commutations, reprieves or pardons. Const 1963, art 5, § 14.
We do not have before us the parole board’s file on defendant. However, it appears that defendant received an early release from his sentence in the form of a discharge from parole. The certificate of discharge does not reflect the Governor’s, pardon or reprieve. Even if this early discharge were considered to be a commutation by the Governor, I do not believe defendant’s resentencing violates the doctrine of separation of powers. This is so because defendant’s original sentence was invalid. The constitutional power granted the Governor to commute a defendant’s sentence presumes imposition of a valid sentence.
Defendant next argues that life probation constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contrary to *16federal and state constitutional protections. I agree with other panels of this Court which have held that life probation does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. See People v Campbell, 115 Mich App 369; 320 NW2d 381 (1982); People v Tanksley, 103 Mich App 268; 303 NW2d 200 (1981).
Further, defendant’s claim that a sentence to life probation violates the principles of due process and equal protection is without merit. I am not persuaded that no rational relationship exists between a legitimate state interest and the distinction made between crimes for purposes of establishing the permissible length of a probationary term. See People v Kaigler, 116 Mich App 567, 570; 323 NW2d 486 (1982).
The legislative scheme regarding punishment for drug offenses evinces a recognition that sale and use of illicit drugs is an extremely serious threat to the well being of the people of this state. With the increasing number of drug-related offenses, the apparent high profit in dealing drugs and the difficulties encountered in enforcing the drug laws, I cannot say that no rational basis exists for differentiating between drug offenses and other offenses for purposes of punishment.
I would affirm.

 The 1987 amendment to MCL 333.7401(3); MSA 14.15(7401)(3), which is inapplicable here, has altered the sentencing options for a conviction under that provision. The amended statute precludes granting disciplinary credits or "any other type of sentence credit reduction,” but also lowers the minimum authorized prison sentence to five years.1987 PA 275.