PEOPLE OF MI V RICHARD GORDON VERNIER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 14, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 206832
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 93-002674 FH
RICHARD GORDON VERNIER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor, third offense (OUIL-3), MCL 257.625(6); MSA 9.2325(6). He was sentenced to serve a term
of two to five years’ imprisonment, consecutive to a prior prison sentence imposed in 1988 for
involuntary manslaughter, from which prior sentence defendant had been released on appeal bond when
the subsequent OUIL-3 offense was committed. Defendant appeals by right, challenging the imposition
of a consecutive sentence. We remand for entry of a corrected judgment of sentence imposing a
concurrent sentence. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In this state, concurrent sentencing is the norm, and a court may impose consecutive sentences
only if authorized by statute. People v Brown, 220 Mich App 680, 682; 560 NW2d 80 (1996).
Because defendant was neither incarcerated in nor escaped from a penal or reformatory institution while
on appeal bond, consecutive sentencing is not authorized in this case under MCL 768.7a(1); MSA
28.1030(1). Nor does MCL 768.7b; MSA 28.1030(2) apply in this situation, since defendant’s prior
involuntary manslaughter charge was no longer “pending disposition” for purposes of that statute once
he was sentenced in 1988. See, e.g., People v Hardy, 212 Mich App 318, 322; 537 NW2d 267
(1995); People v Dukes, 189 Mich App 262, 267; 471 NW2d 651 (1991).
-1
Remanded for entry of a corrected judgment of sentence reflecting a concurrent rather than a
consecutive sentence. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
