People of Michigan v. Gabriel Antonio Alfaro ( 2015 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
May 27, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
150437-8 Stephen J. Markman
Mary Beth Kelly
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
Plaintiff-Appellee, David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein,
v SC: 150437-8 Justices
COA: 316827, 316829
Wayne CC: 12-010423-FC,
GABRIEL ANTONIO ALFARO, 12-010424-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 16, 2014
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of
Appeals, we VACATE the sentence of the Wayne Circuit Court for second-degree
criminal sexual conduct (CSC II), and we REMAND this case to the trial court for
resentencing on the defendant’s conviction for CSC II. Even assuming, without deciding,
that MCL 771.14(2)(e) addresses the duties of the trial court, the probation officer was
required to calculate the sentencing guidelines range for CSC II, and the trial court was
required to determine the applicable guidelines range. See MCL 777.21(2). MCL
771.14(2)(e) required the probation officer to include in the presentence report in this
case both the “sentence grid . . . that contains the recommended minimum sentence
range” and the “computation that determines” that range for all convictions for which a
consecutive sentence was authorized. Because the acts of criminal sexual conduct in this
case occurred in the same transaction, the court was authorized to impose a sentence for
CSC II that is consecutive to the sentences for CSC I. MCL 750.520b(3). Because the
defendant was being sentenced for a felony occurring after January 1, 1999, and subject
to MCL 777.1 et seq., the trial court is required to sentence the defendant within the
appropriate sentencing guidelines range, or articulate on the record a substantial and
compelling reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines range. MCL 769.34(2);
People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003).
In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded
that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
May 27, 2015
a0520
Clerk