PEOPLE OF MI V CEDRIC LAMAR TENNESSEE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 31, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 278483
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 06-011779-01
CEDRIC LAMAR TENNESSEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Smolenski and Servitto, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), MCL
750.227, felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. He was sentenced as a second-offense habitual
offender, MCL 769.10, to 1½ to 7½ years each for the CCW and felon in possession convictions,
and to a two-year term of imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. He appeals as of
right. We affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences but remand for the ministerial task of
correcting the judgment of sentence. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues that his dual convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and
felony-firearm violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. There is no record of defendant’s
having raised this issue below and, therefore, it is not preserved. People v Geno, 261 Mich App
624, 626; 683 NW2d 687 (2004). Thus, the issue is reviewed for plain error affecting
defendant’s substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130
(1999).
Felony-firearm can be predicated on felon in possession of a firearm. People v Dillard,
246 Mich App 163, 168; 631 NW2d 755 (2001). Both this Court and the Michigan Supreme
Court have rejected the argument that dual convictions for both offenses arising out of the
possession of a single weapon violate double-jeopardy protections. Id. at 168-171; People v
Calloway, 469 Mich 448, 450-452; 671 NW2d 733 (2003). Therefore, defendant has not shown
a plain error.
Defendant’s second issue relates to the consecutive nature of his sentence. Defendant is
correct that the trial court erred in wording the judgment of sentence. Only the sentence for the
felony underlying the felony-firearm conviction, in this case the offense of felon in possession of
-1-
a firearm, is to be served consecutively to the underlying offense, and it is also to be served
before the underlying offense. People v Clark, 463 Mich 459, 463-464; 619 NW2d 538 (2000).
The trial court issued an amended judgment of sentence that stated: “Count 1 concurrent to
Counts 2 and 3; Count 2 concurrent to Count 1 but consecutive to Count 3.” (Count 1 was
CCW, Count 2 was felon in possession, and Count 3 was felony-firearm.) The above statement
from the amended judgment of sentence was inadequate to correct defendant’s sentencing
scheme because it implies that the felon-in-possession sentence (Count 2) is to be served at the
same time as the CCW sentence (Count 1). In actuality, the CCW sentence is to be served at the
same time as the felony-firearm sentence, with the felon-in-possession sentence to be served at
the conclusion of the felony-firearm sentence. The judgment of sentence must be corrected to
read: “Count 1 and Count 3 to be served concurrently. Count 2 to be served immediately after
and consecutively to Count 3.”
We affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences but remand for the ministerial task of
correcting the judgment of sentence. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-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.
