Court Opinion

ID: 9696394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:46:38.601454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:21.950204
License: Public Domain

G. R. Deneweth, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the result reached by the majority, but I disagree with the reasoning by which it has been reached.
As is well established, once a trial judge imposes sentence in a criminal case and issues its mittimus, that judge has no further power to modify, change or vacate that sentence. See People v Fox, 312 Mich 577, 581-582; 20 NW2d 732 (1945).
The case at bar concerns itself with rectifying what is plainly an ambiguous sentence. The applicable rule is clearly spelled out in People v Mauch, 23 Mich App 723; 179 NW2d 184 (1970), and People v Daniels, 69 Mich App 345; 244 NW2d 472 (1976). We may remand a case for resentencing where a trial judge imposes a sentence while laboring under a misconception of law.
*417In this case, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence under the erroneous impression that it would expire on the termination of a concurrent Federal sentence. That is clearly not the law. The matter should be resolved by remanding it to Judge Agar for correction of what obviously is an incorrect sentence. To do what the majority suggests flies directly in the face of well-established law and can only serve to set an ambiguously bad precedent.
I would reverse the trial judge and remand sua sponte to Judge Agar for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.