Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
December 18, 2012 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
145142 Michael F. Cavanagh
Marilyn Kelly
Stephen J. Markman
Diane M. Hathaway
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Mary Beth Kelly
Plaintiff-Appellee, Brian K. Zahra,
Justices
v SC: 145142
COA: 302335
Oakland CC: 2008-221029-FH
BRIAN JAMES VEILLEUX,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On November 14, 2012, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave
to appeal the March 29, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court,
the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to
appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case
to the Oakland Circuit Court for it to correct the judgment of sentence by striking those
provisions making the sentences for contempt consecutive to each other and consecutive
to defendant’s sentence for the underlying felony. “A consecutive sentence may be
imposed only if specifically authorized by statute.” People v Lee, 233 Mich App 403,
405 (1999). Contrary to the lower courts’ holdings, MCL 768.7a(1) does not specifically
authorize the consecutive sentences imposed here. MCL 768.7a(1) only applies to “[a]
person who is incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution in this state, or who
escapes from such an institution.” When defendant committed the contempts of court at
issue here, he was not at the time incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution and he
was not an escapee. Finally, we are not persuaded that defendant waived the issue of
whether his contempt sentences were properly imposed consecutively to each other by
not raising it when he was originally sentenced. After defendant was originally
sentenced, the order appointing appellate counsel only referenced defendant’s drug
sentence; it did not mention the contempt sentences and appellate counsel withdrew from
the case without addressing the contempt sentences. The ex parte motion to rescind the
order appointing him does not suggest that he discussed anything involving the contempt
sentences with defendant. However, after defendant was sentenced for his probation
violation and the contempt sentences were reimposed, the order appointing new appellate
counsel did mention the contempt sentences, and defendant’s attorney did challenge such
sentences. Given these circumstances, we hold that the challenges to the contempt
2
sentences have been properly preserved. Because we hold that the trial court erred in
imposing consecutive sentences under MCL 768.7a(1), 1 and because defendant has
already served his concurrent sentences, it is unnecessary for us to address whether under
the circumstances of this case the trial court acted properly in holding defendant in
contempt multiple times.
1
Because the lower courts relied on MCL 768.7a(1) in imposing the consecutive
sentences, we need not address whether another authority, statutory or otherwise, exists
for the imposition of consecutive sentences in this case.
I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.
December 18, 2012 _________________________________________
t1217 Clerk