PEOPLE OF MI V FRANK WALTON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 10, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 219702
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-010861
FRANK L. WALTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
GAGE, J. (concurring)
I agree that the majority properly upheld defendant’s conviction, and correctly rejected
defendant’s allegations of insufficient evidence to support his conviction, evidentiary and
instructional error, prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. I write
separately, however, to note my disagreement with the majority’s resolution of the resentencing
issue.
I wholeheartedly agree with this Court’s observation in People v Mapp, 224 Mich App
431, 434; 569 NW2d 523 (1997), that, absent some demonstration by defendant that the trial
court’s instant sentence was disproportionate, the trial court should have been able to
ministerially correct defendant’s judgment of sentence to reflect the requirement that defendant
serve the sentence imposed consecutively to a preexisting term of probation that he violated.
Because any resentencing by the trial court in this case would involve no revisitation of a
discretionary sentencing decision that would benefit from appearances by and arguments from
defendant and defense counsel, but merely an administrative correction to reflect a mandatory
statutory provision,1 I deem a resentencing hearing under these circumstances a horrible waste of
the court’s time and energy.2
1
See MCL 768.7a(2), which provides that a person convicted of a felony “committed while the
person was on parole from a sentence for a previous offense” must serve “the term of
imprisonment imposed for the later offense . . . at the expiration of the remaining portion of the
term of imprisonment imposed for the previous offense.”
2
I also agree with this Court’s observation in Mapp that “the Court in [People v Thomas, 223
Mich App 9, 13-14; 566 NW2d 13 (1997)] erred in relying in part on the fact that consecutive
(continued…)
-1-
Although the analysis of People v Thomas, 223 Mich App 9; 566 NW2d 13 (1997),
governs the result in this case according to MCR 7.215(I)(1), I must note my objection to the
shameful waste of judicial resources occasioned by applying Thomas in this case.3
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
(…continued)
sentences effectively increased the minimum sentence that the defendant would have to serve.”
3
Based on my experience as a trial judge, I further note that the required resentencing
inconveniences not only the trial court but the prisoner himself. The prisoner is not only
inconvenienced by the intrusion of a resentencing procedure, but also experiences disruption of
his rehabilitation process and setbacks in his opportunities to participate in various correctional
programs.
-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.