Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
May 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
132045 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
v SC: 132045
COA: 271381
St. Joseph CC: 05-013191-FC
FRANK ROBERT STELLNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 24, 2006
order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows:
Defendant argues that he was denied Equal Protection1 because he was not given
an appeal as of right from his sentence. He alleges that his sentence is too long because
the trial court made errors in scoring the mandatory sentencing guidelines. Because I
believe that there may be merit to his Equal Protection argument, I would grant
defendant’s application for leave to appeal.
In the trial court, defendant pleaded guilty of kidnapping and aggravated assault.
At sentencing, the judge assessed points for numerous sentencing offense variables over
defendant’s objections. The guidelines range that resulted was 81 to 135 months’
imprisonment. Had defendant prevailed on all of his scoring arguments, the guidelines
range would have been as low as 0 to 18 months.
Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of 8 to 30 years. Because he had
pleaded guilty, he did not have an appeal of right in the Court of Appeals. MCR
1
US Const Am XIV, § 1; Const 1963, art 1, § 2.
2
7.203(A)(1)(b). Rather, he had to apply for leave to appeal in that court. The Court of
Appeals denied his application.
Defendant points out that every defendant convicted, be it by plea or by guilty
verdict, undergoes the same sentencing procedure. But one who is convicted after a jury
or bench trial has a right to appeal on the basis of sentencing errors. By contrast, one
who is convicted by plea has no right of appeal by which to raise sentencing issues.
Defendant argues that the different treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
United States Constitution.
I think that defendant raises an important constitutional issue that affects many
criminal defendants. Neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court has
considered the issue. Therefore, I would grant defendant’s application to consider
whether defendants convicted after pleading guilty must be given a right of appeal for the
purpose of raising sentencing issues.
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.
May 4, 2007 _________________________________________
p0501 Clerk