Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
September 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
131108 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: 131108
COA: 268866
Baraga CC: 05-000926-FH
JODY LYNNE AXLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 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.
YOUNG, J., concurs and states as follows:
I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. In her application for leave to
appeal, defendant argued that the extent of the sentencing court’s upward departure from
the sentencing guidelines was an abuse of discretion. Defendant did not raise the issue
whether the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v Washington, 542 US
296 (2004), applied to Michigan’s intermediate sentencing guidelines scheme. MCL
769.34(4)(a). Generally, appeals are limited to those issues raised in the application for
leave to appeal, MCR 7.302(G)(4), and arguments not raised and preserved for review are
deemed waived. People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643 (1994).
CORRIGAN, J., joins the statement of YOUNG, J.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows:
I dissent and would instead remand this case to the Court of Appeals for
consideration as on leave granted. This case squarely raises the question whether, and to
what extent, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v Washington, 542
2
US 296 (2004), applies to Michigan’s intermediate sentencing guidelines scheme. MCL
769.34(4)(a). The trial court based its sentencing departure on facts that were not part of
defendant’s criminal history, admitted by defendant, or proven to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Thus, this case presents an appropriate vehicle for determining
whether, when the guidelines call for an intermediate sanction, Blakely precludes the
imposition of a prison sentence based on such other facts.
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.
September 29, 2006 _________________________________________
p0926 Clerk