6.10​Discretionary Sentence Enhancement Under Article 7 of the PHC

Unlike the provision in MCL 333.7413(2), MCL 333.7413(1) permits, but does not require, a sentencing court to double the term of imprisonment authorized by the applicable statute for a first conviction of the offense.

MCL 333.7413(1) states:

“Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 333.7413(2)], an individual convicted of a second or subsequent offense under [Article 7 of the PHC] may be imprisoned for a term not more than twice the term authorized or fined an amount not more than twice that otherwise authorized, or both.”

A.​Aiding and Abetting

A person who aids and abets in the commission of an offense is subject to the same penalties as if he or she directly committed the offense.¹⁷⁵ MCL 767.39. Because MCL 767.39 mandates prosecution, trial, conviction, and punishment as if an offender directly committed the offense charged, aiding and abetting a controlled substance offense falls within Article 7 of the PHC and is classified as an “offense under this article” for purposes of the sentence enhancements authorized by MCL 333.7413(1).

B.​Conspiracy

Conspiracy offenses prosecuted under MCL 750.157a do not qualify as “a second or subsequent offense under [Article 7 of the PHC].” People v Briseno, 211 Mich App 11, 18 (1995). Therefore, the provisions of MCL 333.7413(1)¹⁷⁶ applicable to repeat offenders do not apply to subsequent conspiracy convictions prosecuted under MCL 750.157a. Briseno, 211 Mich App at 18. See also People v Anderson, 202 Mich App 732, 735 (1993) (holding that enhancement of the defendant’s sentence under MCL 333.7413 was improper because the defendant’s conviction of attempted conspiracy to deliver cocaine was a separate offense from delivery of cocaine and was thus not an offense under Article 7 of the PHC).

C.​Calculation of Minimum Sentence

“[W]hen calculating a defendant’s recommended minimum sentence range under the sentencing guidelines when the defendant’s minimum and maximum sentences may be enhanced pursuant to [MCL 333.7413(1)¹⁷⁷], a trial court should score the PRVs.” People v Peltola, 489 Mich 174, 190 (2011). “Post-Lockridge,^[178] the minimum allowed sentence is no longer limited to twice the sentencing guidelines range.” People v Hines, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025). Under MCL 769.34(2)(b), “the enhanced minimum could be up to 2/3 of the new statutory maximum.” Hines, ___ Mich App at ___ (holding that post-Lockridge, MCL 333.7413 “has no effect on the advisory sentencing guidelines,” but does “potentially increase the statutory minimum”).

D.​Enhancements Post-Lockridge

MCL 333.7413(1) provides that “an individual convicted of a second or subsequent offense . . . may be imprisoned for a term not more than twice the term otherwise authorized or fined an amount not more than twice that otherwise authorized, or both.” People v Hines, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025). However, “the portion of the [People v Williams, 268 Mich App 416, 429 (2005)] opinion that permitted doubling the guidelines range under MCL 333.7413 has been overruled by [People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 365 (2015)] and subsequent laws.” Hines, ___ Mich App at ___. “Post-Lockridge, the minimum allowed sentence is no longer limited to twice the sentencing guidelines range.” Id. at ___. Rather, under MCL 769.34(2)(b), “the enhanced minimum could be up to 2/3 of the new statutory maximum.” Hines, ___ Mich App at ___. “The trial court would just be required to articulate its reasoning for increasing the statutory maximum, its reasoning for departing from the guidelines, and its reasoning supporting the extent of the departure.” Id. at ___.

E.​Temporal Requirements

Although an offender’s convictions for purposes of MCL 333.7413(1) must follow one another, there is no statutory requirement regarding the temporal sequence of the commission dates of the offenses on which the offender’s convictions are based. People v Roseburgh, 215 Mich App 237, 239 (1996).¹⁷⁹