Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
November 2, 2016 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
151219 & (37) Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Joan L. Larsen,
Justices
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 151219
COA: 318872
Isabella CC: 2013-000191-FH
JAMES ALLEN CHANDLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2015
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the last paragraph of Section III.B. of the
Court of Appeals opinion, and we REMAND this case to the Isabella Circuit Court. The
trial court shall consider whether the defendant was properly assigned 15 points on
Offense Variable 10 (OV 10) for “predatory conduct” under MCL 777.40(1)(a) and
(3)(a), or whether the 15-point score was improperly based solely on the conduct of the
defendant’s co-offenders. See People v Gloster, 499 Mich 199 (2016). If the trial court
determines that OV 10 was scored incorrectly, the court shall resentence the defendant.
People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006). If, however, the trial court determines that OV
10 was correctly scored, the court shall determine whether it would have imposed a
materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in People v
Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). In making this determination, the trial court shall
follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court determines
that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its
discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines
that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint
on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. 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. The motion to remand and for appointment of appellate counsel
is DENIED.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
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.
November 2, 2016
s1026
Clerk