In People v. Cummings, No. 150116, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the sentencing judge “failed to identify any evidence from which one could conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences was warranted.” While MCL 750.520b(3) permits a judge to make consecutive sentences for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and another criminal offense, the Court held that the sentencing judge must provide a basis for its determination that the two criminal offenses arose from the same transaction. If no such conclusion can be made, the sentencing judge must resentence the defendant. The Court remanded the case to the Kent Circuit Court to either state its conclusion regarding to similarities between the two offenses or to resentence the defendant. The Court denied leave to appeal the remaining questions presented in the application.
Blogs
