Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
October 3, 2017 Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
150010 David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Joan L. Larsen
Kurtis T. Wilder,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 150010
COA: 313524
Midland CC: 12-005145-FC
BRIAN PAUL THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
By order of April 28, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the July 15, 2014
judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v
Lockridge (Docket No. 149073), and by order of January 31, 2017, the case was held in
abeyance pending the decision in People v Comer (Docket No. 152713). On order of the
Court, the cases having been decided on July 29, 2015 and June 23, 2017, respectively,
People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015), and People v Comer, 500 Mich ___ (2017),
the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting
leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that
the trial court’s failure to impose lifetime electronic monitoring, as statutorily mandated
by MCL 750.520b(2)(d), was a clerical error that could be corrected by the trial court on
its own initiative. In Comer, we held that such an error results in an invalid sentence, but
that the error is substantive and may only be corrected by the trial court on its own
initiative before judgment is entered. MCR 6.435; MCR 6.429. In this case, the trial
court did not have authority to amend the judgment of sentence after entry to add a
provision for lifetime electronic monitoring. Therefore, we VACATE the December 14,
2012 amended judgment of sentence, and we REMAND this case to the Midland Circuit
Court to reinstate the November 19, 2012 judgment of sentence.
In addition, the Midland Circuit Court shall determine whether the court would
have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in
Part VI of our opinion in Lockridge. 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
2
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.
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.
October 3, 2017
s0925
Clerk