PEOPLE OF MI V STANLEY DUANE KELLOGG
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 28, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 183930
Kent Circuit
LC No. 94-002470-FH
STANLEY DUANE KELLOGG,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: D.F. Walsh,* P.J., and R.P. Griffin** and W.P. Cynar,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor, third offense, MCL 257.625(1) and (7)(d); MSA 9.2325(1) and (7)(d), and was sentenced to
two to five years’ imprisonment. He appeals as of right. We affirm defendant’s conviction but remand
for a hearing regarding the constitutional validity of a prior conviction used to enhance his sentence. This
case has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ruling that he failed to present prima facie proof
that a 1989 Georgia conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, which was used to
enhance his punishment in the case at bar, was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel. We agree and remand this case to the trial court for a hearing pursuant to United States v
Tucker, 404 US 443; 92 S Ct 589; 30 L Ed 2d 592 (1972), at which plaintiff will be required to
establish the constitutional validity of the Georgia conviction. People v Carpentier, 446 Mich 19, 31;
521 NW2d 195 (1994); People v Moore, 391 Mich 426, 440-441; 216 NW2d 770 (1974).
*Former Court of Appeals judges, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
**Former Supreme Court justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
-1
Defendant’s arguments that he was entitled to be informed before pleading that his sentence
would be consecutive to the one he was serving at the time of the instant offense, and that he is entitled
to sentence reduction pursuant to MCL 801.257; MSA 28.1747(7), are without merit.
We address defendant’s final allegation in the event that the trial court finds his Georgia
conviction constitutionally valid. Defendant contends that his sentence is disproportionate. People v
Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). We disagree. The sentence is proportional to the
seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.
Defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but the case is remanded to the trial court for a hearing at
which plaintiff shall have the burden of establishing the constitutional validity of defendant’s Georgia
conviction. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Daniel F. Walsh
/s/ Robert P. Griffin
/s/ Walter P. Cynar
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
