Court Opinion

ID: 9688808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:06:34.988259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.371865
License: Public Domain

Taylor, J.
(dissenting). I would hold that the sentencing judge erred in taking into consideration the effect of the mandatory consecutive two-year sentence defendant is required to serve as a result of his conviction of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in imposing a sentence.
This Court has recently held that the cumulative nature of a defendant’s sentences is irrelevant in determining whether his sentences are excessive. People v Warner, 190 Mich App 734, 736; 476 NW2d 660 (1991); People v Kent, 194 Mich App 206, 208; 486 NW2d 110 (1992). I am not convinced by the majority’s reasons for distinguishing these cases from the case at bar, and would find that we are bound by Warner and Kent.
I also disagree with the majority’s contention that the principle of proportionality is defeated when a sentencing judge fashions an appropriate sentence for an underlying felony without considering the consecutive two-year felony-firearm sentence. Our Supreme Court has held that a judge may not consider disciplinary credits as a reason *603for enhancing a sentence because to do so would frustrate the Legislature’s purpose in passing the sentence reduction act. People v Fleming, 428 Mich 408, 428; 410 NW2d 266 (1987). I would apply the same reasoning and hold that considering the consecutive two-year felony-firearm sentence as a reason for reducing the sentence for the underlying felony circumvents the Legislature’s intent in passing the felony-firearm statute. I would remand for resentencing.