PEOPLE OF MI V CHARLES TILLMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 16, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 228724
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-003166
CHARLES TILLMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from sentences of forty to ninety months for carrying a
concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, and felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f, as well
as a two-year sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL
750.227b, each of which were ordered to be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for a
prior controlled substance offense. We remand for clarification of the reason for consecutive
sentencing. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Concurrent sentencing is the norm. Consecutive sentences may not be imposed absent
statutory authority. People v Alvarado, 192 Mich App 718, 720; 481 NW2d 822 (1992). MCL
768.7b provides such authority. It reads in part:
Beginning January 1, 1992, if a person who has been charged with a
felony, pending the disposition of the charge, commits a subsequent offense that
is a felony, upon conviction of the subsequent offense . . . , the following shall
apply:
(a) Unless the subsequent offense is a major controlled substance offense,
the sentences imposed for the prior charged offense and the subsequent offense
may run consecutively. [MCL 768.7b(2).]
The term “may” designates discretion. Port Huron v Amoco Oil Co, Inc, 229 Mich App
616, 631; 583 NW2d 215 (1998). Thus MCL 768.7b(2) “operates at the discretion of the trial
court.” People v Daniels, 69 Mich App 345, 349; 244 NW2d 472 (1976). Therefore, the trial
court had discretion in determining whether to impose a consecutive sentence because the crimes
were committed while defendant was out on bond for a prior offense. In stating that defendant’s
-1-
sentence “has to be consecutive,” the court may have evinced a mistaken belief that consecutive
sentencing was mandatory.
Accordingly, we remand for clarification of the reason for consecutive sentencing. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
