PEOPLE OF MI V DARRIN KEITH REDDEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 16, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 247949
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2002-185001-FC
DARRIN KEITH REDDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Smolenski and Owens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his sentence following a conviction of indecent exposure by
a sexually delinquent person, MCL 750.335a and MCL 750.10a.1 Defendant was sentenced as
an habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11, to a prison term of one day to life. We affirm.
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court sentenced him under a
misapprehension of the law. Specifically, defendant claims the trial court believed that it was
statutorily required to impose a sentence of one day to life imprisonment. Defendant claims that
the trial court had the discretion to sentence him to treatment-based probation. People v Kelly,
186 Mich App 524, 531; 465 NW2d 569 (1990) (Alternate sentences may be imposed when the
evidence justifies a more flexible form of confinement). Therefore, defendant contends, he is
entitled to a remand for resentencing. Sentencing issues are reviewed by this Court for an abuse
of discretion. People v Sexton, 250 Mich App 211, 227; 646 NW2d 875 (2002).
“[A] trial court has been given broad discretion, within limits fixed by law, to tailor a
sentence to the circumstances of each case and each offender, in an effort to balance society’s
need for protection against its interest in rehabilitation of the offender.” People v Sabin (On
Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 661; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). Permissible considerations
include a defendant’s criminal, social, and personal history. People v Oliver, 242 Mich App 92,
98; 617 NW2d 721 (2000). A trial court has the authority to resentence a defendant only if the
initial sentence was invalid, MCR 6.429; People v Moore, 468 Mich 573, 579; 664 NW2d 700
1
Defendant was convicted by a jury of indecent exposure and subsequently pleaded guilty to
being a sexually delinquent person.
-1-
(2003), and a sentence based on a misconception of law is invalid. People v Miles, 454 Mich 90,
96; 559 NW2d 299 (1997).
At the time defendant was sentenced, MCL 750.335a provided:2
Any person who shall knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of
his or her person or of the person of another shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year, or by a
fine of not more than $500.00, or if such person was at the time of the said
offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and
the maximum of which shall be life: Provided, That any other provision of any
other statute notwithstanding, said offense shall be triable only in a court of
record.
Thus, the statute provided “an alternate sentence if the person convicted of indecent exposure
was sexually delinquent at the time he committed the offense.” Kelly, supra, at 528.
At sentencing, defendant stated that he believed probation and treatment would be a
better alternative for him than prison time. He argued that he had been incarcerated before, and
it had not made a difference. Following defendant’s statements, the court responded: “I have no
options in this other than what state law provides. I have none. People think Judges can do
anything and that’s, they’re dead wrong about it. I can’t. I’m limited within the confines of
what the law provides.” Defendant contends these statements by the court demonstrate that it
misunderstood the law concerning the alternative sentence of probation and treatment. See
Kelly, supra. We disagree.
Following defendant’s jury conviction of indecent exposure, defendant pleaded no
contest to the sexually delinquent charge. At that time, the trial court informed defendant:
Do you understand you’re being charged under the statute with the charge
of being a sexually delinquent person under which I could sentence you to one
day to life imprisonment?
I could also sentence you to a probationary term which could mean your
incarceration in the Oakland County Jail up to a year. Do you understand that?
Because of the court’s explanation regarding its sentencing options when taking
defendant’s plea, we cannot say that the trial court was under a misapprehension of the law when
it sentenced defendant. The trial court’s explanation of possible sentencing options to defendant
2
MCL 750.335a was amended by 2002 PA 672, effective March 31, 2003, by increasing the
maximum fine from $500 to $1000.
-2-
clearly shows its understanding of the possible alternative sentences available.3 See Kelly, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Donald S. Owens
3
Defendant also contends that the prosecution misled the court by suggesting the court had no
other alternative but to sentence defendant to one day to life. We find this argument
unpersuasive. A review of the record clearly shows the prosecution was recommending a
sentence of one day to life to the court on the basis of defendant’s prior record.
-3-
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.
