Court Opinion

ID: 9410374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 05:06:58.387072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.521697
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     July 20, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 363425
                                                                     Kent Circuit Court
JEFFREY ALAN STOLTZ,                                                 LC No. 18-003731-FH

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and SHAPIRO and REDFORD, JJ.

REDFORD, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

       I concur with the majority’s decisions to vacate defendant’s sentences and the restitution
award, but I respectfully dissent from its decision that on remand the case must be assigned to a
new judge.

        Applying the factors set forth in People v Walker, 504 Mich 267, 285-286; 934 NW2d 727
(2019), I conclude that the circumstances of this case do not warrant remand to a different judge.
The record does not indicate that the trial court would reasonably be expected to have substantial
difficulty putting aside previously expressed views or findings. Although the trial court erred in
its restitution calculation and should have obtained and considered an updated PSIR for
resentencing defendant, I am not persuaded that on remand the trial court will not be able to revisit
these issues and conduct further proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion. Nor do I find
that reassignment is necessary or advisable to preserve the appearance of justice. Further,
reassignment likely would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving
the appearance of fairness. The record reflects that the trial court, having presided over the trial
and conducted further proceedings, is best positioned to assess the restitution to be awarded to the
victims in light of this Court’s opinion, and to resentence defendant with the benefit of review of
an updated PSIR and articulate on the record the trial court’s reasoning for the sentence imposed
after considering such information.

                                                              /s/ James Robert Redford

                                                -1-