State of Michigan v RICHARD GORDON VERNIER
No. 206832
Michigan Court of Appeals
May 14, 1999, Decided
Unpublished
Prior case history: St. Clair Circuit Court. LC No. 93-002674 FH.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ.
OPINION
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, third offense (OUIL-3), MCL 257.625(6); MSA 9.2325(6). He was sentenced to serve a term of two to five years' imprisonment, consecutive to a prior prison sentence imposed in 1988 for involuntary manslaughter, from which prior sentence defendant had been released on appeal bond when the subsequent OUIL-3 offense was committed. Defendant appeals by right, challenging the imposition of a consecutive sentence. We remand for entry of a corrected judgment of sentence imposing a concurrent sentence. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In this state, concurrent sentencing is the norm, and a court may impose consecutive sentences only if authorized by statute. People v Brown, 220 Mich App 680, 682; 560 NW2d 80 (1996). Because defendant was neither incarcerated in nor escaped from a penal or reformatory institution while on appeal bond, consecutive sentencing is not authorized in this case under MCL 768.7a(1); MSA 28.1030(1). Nor does MCL 768.7b; MSA 28.1030(2) apply in this situation, since defendant's prior involuntary manslaughter charge was no longer "pending disposition" for purposes of that statute once he was sentenced in 1988. See, e.g., People v Hardy, 212 Mich App 318, 322; 537 NW2d 267 (1995); People v Dukes, 189 Mich App 262, 267; 471 NW2d 651 (1991).
Remanded for entry of a corrected judgment of sentence reflecting a concurrent rather than a consecutive sentence. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski