Court Opinion

ID: 9666956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:31:06.214071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:33.800363
License: Public Domain

Sawyer, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
Defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 150 to 500 years in prison. I would affirm.
Defendant’s convictions arise from an incident occurring on March 4, 1987. Defendant had been at his brother’s house and had consumed some alcohol, though it is not clear if he was intoxicated. Defendant borrowed a shotgun from his brother and went outside to shoot at pigeons. While walking through the neighborhood, he came upon the home of the victim and cut through her yard and went to the back of the victim’s home. At the back of the home, defendant found a car in the garage and decided to enter the home to secure the car keys so he could drive the car to Detroit to visit his estranged wife.
Defendant broke into the house and went through the kitchen and into the living room, where he found the eighty-year-old victim. Defendant then forced the victim to go upstairs, where he ordered her to undress at gunpoint and then proceeded to rape her. Following the sexual act, defendant shot the victim in the head at close range with the shotgun, killing her instantly. Defendant then took her car and drove to Detroit; he returned the following day, at which time he was arrested.
The majority reaches a conclusion with which I cannot agree: that a sentencing judge cannot impose a sentence "for any term of years” as authorized by statute, but, rather, must limit his sen*146tence to the defendant’s life expectancy. While the majority notes that various panels of this Court have grappled with this issue, I am aware of only one published decision of this Court which has reached a conclusion similar to that reached by the majority today. See People v Oscar Moore, 164 Mich App 378; 417 NW2d 508 (1987). The Moore Court employed an analysis different than that utilized by the majority, though with the same result.
While the majority claims that our Court has failed to reach a consensus on this issue, the majority has found only one case, Moore itself, which invalidates the statutorily imposed discretion of the circuit court to impose a sentence of "any term of years,” while acknowledging seven published decisions to the contrary. See ante, n 2.1 would submit that a consensus has formed and that the consensus is to apply the statute as it was written: "any term of years” meaning just that, any term of years.
In its decision, the majority recognized that the Legislature has the power to establish criminal penalties. Yet the majority, dissatisfied with the way the Legislature has exercised that power, refuses to apply the statute as written. Moreover, while the majority acknowledges that a permissible factor in sentencing is the protection of society, it overlooks the fact that the trial court fashioned its sentences recognizing that society must forever be protected from defendant. I strongly disagree with the majority’s decision to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court; it was within the trial court’s discretion to emphasize the need to protect society in making its sentencing decision.
As noted above, the majority does not rely on the Moore analysis in reaching its conclusion; rather, it has created its own theory to invalidate *147defendant’s lawfully imposed sentences. The majority, relying on People v Tanner, 387 Mich 683; 199 NW2d 202 (1972), concludes that a lengthy sentence of a term of years violates the indeterminate sentencing statute, MCL 769.8; MSA 28.1080. See also MCL 769.9(2); MSA 28.1081(2). While the majority quotes the latter statute, it ignores the words of that statute. MCL 769.9(2); MSA 28.1081(2) clearly and unequivocally provides that where "the maximum sentence in the discretion of the court may be imprisonment for life or any number or term of years, the court . . . may impose a sentence for any term of years” (Emphasis added.) The Legislature does not in that statute, the indeterminate sentencing statute, or any other statute restrict the trial court’s authority to impose a sentence for any term of years. The statute is clear and unambiguous, it needs no interpretation or construction. See Moore, supra (Tahvonen, J., dissenting).
The majority argues that the sentences imposed on defendant, 150 to 500 years, violate the indeterminate sentencing statute because they would never allow defendant to be eligible for parole, noting that defendant would have to serve approximately 120 years before becoming eligible for parole at the age of 140 or so. That is, as I understand the majority’s decision, such a sentence is, in effect, a determinate sentence according to the majority. This reasoning is without merit. While to say without equivocation that defendant will not live to the age of 140 may underestimate the advances to be achieved by medical science in the years ahead, I accept that no person currently lives to the age of 140 years and there is no solid basis for believing that a person will live so long in the foreseeable future. However, what the majority fails to acknowledge *148is that the Legislature may, with the stroke of a pen, render defendant eligible for parole. It could do so by either increasing the amount of disciplinary credits defendant can earn or by amending the "lifer law,” MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4), to allow a prisoner serving a "term of years” sentence to be eligible for parole after serving ten years, or any other amount, of his sentence.1
The fact that the Legislature has not acted to ensure that all prisoners, other than those serving sentences of life without parole, will become eligible for parole some day indicates to me that the Legislature sees no need to ensure the parolability of our most violent felons. Indeed, the majority states that had "the Legislature chosen to make the possible penalty for second-degree murder or first-degree criminal sexual conduct life without the possibility of parole, we would defer to this judgment and affirm defendant’s sentences.” Ante at 142. I would submit that the current sentencing scheme reflects that the Legislature has, in fact, provided this possibility. That is, with first-degree murder, the sentencing judge has no discretion but to impose a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. However, for second-degree murder (and first-degree criminal sexual conduct), the trial court has unbridled discretion to impose a life sentence, which includes the possibility of parole, or any term of years. Such a life sentence allows a defendant to be eligible for parole after ten years under the lifer law. Under an "any term of years” sentence, however, the trial court could fashion a sentence which allows a defendant to be paroled before serving ten years, after serving more than ten years or, as in the case at bar, perhaps never._
*149I would submit that this sentencing scheme reflects a great deal of common sense. While the Legislature has made the determination that a crime such as first-degree murder is so heinous that it always requires that a defendant serve the rest of his life in prison, the sentencing scheme for lesser offenses, such as second-degree murder and first-degree criminal sexual conduct, indicates that the sentencing judge is empowered with the discretion to determine whether the nature of the offense and of the offender requires the defendant to serve the rest of his life in prison, without the realistic possibility of parole, or whether a different term, one which will allow for parole, is appropriate. While the interplay between the various sentencing statutes may require careful reading and the legislative scheme may be inartful, the Legislature, unfortunately, all too frequently expresses its intent in inartfully drafted statutes. While the Legislature perhaps could have organized the sentencing statutes in a clearer and more coherent manner, I believe that the meaning and intent of the sentencing statutes become apparent with careful reading and need no further construction. Simply put, the fact that the statutory draftsmanship may leave something to be desired does not authorize this Court to interpret those statutes as it sees fit. Rather, it is the Legislature’s responsibility to reorganize its statutes in a clearer and more concise form if it sees the need to do so.
The majority decries that a lengthy sentence "precludes any likelihood that the Governor, acting through the parole board, will be given the opportunity to exercise discretion,” ante at 143, and grant parole. My question to the majority is: Why could the Governor not grant clemency and commute the sentence to one which renders the *150prisoner eligible for parole and then parole him? If the Governor believes that a prisoner has been rehabilitated and is entitled to be reintegrated with society, he certainly has the power to do that.
I also take issue with the majority’s conclusion that defendant’s sentences are invalid because they "(2) violate the intent of the Legislature.” Ante at 144. Aside from my discussion above concerning what the intent of the Legislature might truly be, I believe that the majority’s decision itself violates the intent of the people in passing Proposal b. That initiative passed, I submit, because the citizens of our state were tired of seeing serious felons released from prison before they should be. Between the effects of Proposal b and the discretion of a sentencing judge to impose a sentence of "any term of years,” it is possible to put vicious criminals such as defendant in prison for life. I submit that this is precisely what the voters intended in passing Proposal B.
Moreover, the majority’s decision leaves many issues unresolved. The majority does not tell us which actuarial tables are to be used to determine whether a defendant’s sentence exceeds his life expectancy. Nor does the majority tell us whether the peculiar circumstances, such as health, of a given defendant must be taken into account in fashioning a sentence; must a judge consult with an actuary and the defendant’s physician before imposing sentence? Indeed, the majority does not even tell us what sentence is acceptable.
Finally, I direct the majority’s attention to the fact that the Supreme Court in authorizing us to reverse sentences which shock our judicial conscience, People v Coles, 417 Mich 523; 339 NW2d 440 (1983), has provided a mechanism by which we can curb any excesses by the trial courts in sentencing. I submit that the power of sentence review established in Coles is sufficient to address *151this issue. We need not consult actuaries and determine life expectancies; rather, we need only look at the offense and the offender and look into our own consciences and determine if we are shocked by the sentence. While the majority does not tell us if its conscience is shocked by the sentences imposed, mine is not.
For the above reasons, I most vigorously dissent from the decision of the majority.
I would affirm.
ADDENDUM
After I filed my dissent with the Clerk of the Court, but just prior to its release to the public, the Supreme Court released its opinion in People v Timothy Moore, 432 Mich 311; 439 NW2d 684 (1989). While I recognize that a majority of the justices have held that "any term of years” does not mean "any term of years,” I remain unconvinced that the reasoning of either the majority in Timothy Moore or in the instant case is correct. Rather, I believe that Justice Boyle’s dissent represents the well-reasoned view of this issue.
While the doctrine of stare decisis normally would constrain me to concur in the conclusion of the majority, I decided to allow my dissent to be released unchanged since the period for rehearing in Timothy Moore had not yet run and it was possible that the Supreme Court would grant rehearing and correct their mistake. Absent that, I would urge the Court to grant leave in the instant case and quickly overrule its decision in Timothy Moore.
The sound logic of Justice Boyle’s dissent clearly explains why the majority’s decision is flawed and further comment by me would be repetitive. Suffice it to say that the majority’s *152decision in Timothy Moore fails to address my concerns discussed in my dissent above.

 For that matter, the Legislature could presumably enact a statute which would allow all prisoners serving sentences for which parole is possible to be considered for parole after reaching a certain age.