Criminal Law ? Aldrich Legal Services

This week in the Michigan Court of Appeals there was a case regarding Criminal Law, specifically, Sentencing; ?Lifetime electronic monitoring? pursuant to MCL 750.520n; Effect of the fact the victim was not less than 13 years old at the time of the offenses

?The court also held that since the evidence showed that two sexual penetrations arose out of the penetrations forming the basis of the sentencing offenses, OV 11 was properly scored. Further, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in finding that defendant?s gifts to the victim and picking her up in his vehicle were predatory conduct used to exploit a vulnerable victim and thus, properly scored 15 points for OV 10. The victim testified that she started having sex with defendant when she was 13 years old and that she was involved with him sexually for 3 years. Defendant was convicted of three counts of CSC I (multiple variables). He was sentenced to 17-1/2 to 40 years in prison and his judgment of sentence was amended to order him to lifetime electronic monitoring pursuant to MCL 750.520n. He argued on appeal, inter alia, that he was erroneously ordered to lifetime electronic monitoring because the victim was not less than 13 years old at the time of the offenses. The court disagreed. MCL 750.520b(2) requires 3 differing prison sentences for CSC I depending on the circumstances ? (1) imprisonment for life or any term of years, (2) imprisonment for life or any term of years, but not less than 25 years, if the defendant was 17 years or older and the victim was 13 or younger, or (3) imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole if the defendant was previously convicted of a CSC offense or another attempted CSC offense. ?The subsection (d) penalty regarding lifetime monitoring is explicitly required to be imposed in addition to the penalties provided in subsections (a) and (b).? The court noted that ?the lifetime monitoring penalty specifically does not apply when a defendant is sentenced to prison for life without parole under subsection (c).? The court concluded that its interpretation of MCL 750.520b(2) was further supported by MCL 750.520n(1). The Brantley court found that, applying the ?last antecedent rule? to the statute, the phrase ?committed by an individual 17 years old or older against an individual less than 13 years of age? only modified or restricted the immediately preceding clause, ?520c.? Thus, a person convicted under ? 520b, regardless of the ages involved, is to be sentenced to lifetime electronic monitoring, and a person convicted under ? 520c is to be sentenced to lifetime monitoring only if the defendant was 17 or older at the time of the crime and the victim was less than 13. Affirmed.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

Source: http://aldrichlegalservicesblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/criminal-law-5/

critics choice awards 2012 colbert president huntingtons disease rob the firm new york philharmonic marines urinating on taliban