Court Opinion

ID: 9689353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:28:38.863762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:47.190671
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, P.J.
(concurring). While I concur fully in the opinion of the majority I write separately to comment on the sentences meted out in this case. At present, neither this Court nor the Supreme Court are permitted to review the exer*639cise of a trial court’s sentencing discretion.1 As one consequence, the lower court records made available for us generally do not include pertinent presentence information utilized by the trial judges. Often, however, some of this information can be gleaned from the sentencing transcript itself. In the instant case, it is apparent from the sentencing record that neither of these defendants had any involvement with the criminal justice system prior to this offense. Moreover, the trial record does not indicate that substantial injury or harm to the complainant took place. Still, defendants failed to appear on the original date of sentencing, delaying sentencing some two years. Inasmuch as the sentences imposed of 25 to 45 years were within the statutory guidelines, our consideration of whether they were appropriate effectively ceases. I believe the circumstances of this case, however, support a move toward appellate sentence review.2

 People v Burton, 396 Mich 238, 242-243; 240 NW2d 239 (1976), Cummins v People, 42 Mich 142, 143-144; 3 NW 305 (1879), cf. People v Murray, 72 Mich 10, 16-17; 40 NW 29 (1888).

 See People v Gonzales, 412 Mich 917 (1982), People v Waits, 412 Mich 914 (1982), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), lv gtd 412 Mich 917 (1982).