1.3Applicability of the Statutory Sentencing Guidelines

The statutory sentencing guidelines apply to felony offenses listed in MCL 777.11 to MCL 777.19 that were committed on or after January 1, 1999.1 MCL 769.34(2). The brief descriptions accompanying the statutory sections listing the felony offenses in MCL 777.11 to MCL 777.19 “are for assistance only.” MCL 777.6. The language contained in the statute defining the felony offense itself governs application of the sentencing guidelines. Id. The statutory sentencing guidelines are not applicable to offenses for which the applicable statute establishes a mandatory determinate penalty or a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment for conviction of the offense. MCL 769.34(5).

In 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court rendered the previously-mandatory sentencing guidelines “advisory only.” People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 365, 399 (2015), aff’g in part and rev’g in part 304 Mich App 278 (2014) and overruling People v Herron, 303 Mich App 392 (2013). Although “sentencing courts [are no longer] bound by the applicable sentencing guidelines range,” they must “continue to consult the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence,” and they “must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.” Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392, citing People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 549 (1983), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 644 (1990).2 The Lockridge decision is discussed in detail in Section 1.4.

Application of the statutory sentencing guidelines is determined by “the date the crime was committed,” MCL 769.34(2); application of the guidelines is not affected by the date of conviction or the date of sentencing.

1   However, while MCL 777.16q lists MCL 750.335a(2)(c) (aggravated indecent exposure by a sexually delinquent person), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the guidelines do not apply to that offense; instead, the court must impose the statutory sentence of 1 day to life required by MCL 750.335a(2)(c). People v Arnold, 508 Mich 1, 26 (2021) (Arnold II).

2   For more information on the precedential value of an opinion with negative subsequent history, see our note.