PEOPLE OF MI V JACOB JOSEPH SUMMERVILLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 30, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 285129
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 04-049963-FH
JACOB JOSEPH SUMMERVILLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Talbot and Shapiro, JJ.
SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).
I concur in the affirmance of defendant’s conviction.
I write separately to address the fact that the record also contains what defendant styled
as an in pro per motion for correction of his presentence report. This motion actually describes
alleged errors in defendant’s Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) parole guideline
sheet, rather than his presentence report, and asserts that these errors resulted in defendant being
denied parole even though he has completed his minimum sentence. The trial court properly
found no error in the presentence report itself and did not address the claimed errors in the
MDOC documents, noting its lack of jurisdiction over the MDOC.
A review of the defendant’s trial court record does reveal that defendant’s 3/11/08 Parole
Guidelines Score Sheet and his 9/3/04 Parole Guidelines Data Entry Assessment contain what
appear to be incorrect scorings that may have affected his parole eligibility. Specifically, the
Parole Guidelines Scoresheet scores defendant’s offense as involving the following aggravating
conditions: “violence or cruelty beyond that necessary to commit the crime,” “sexual offense or
sexually assaultive behavior,” “victim transported or held captive beyond that necessary to
commit the crime,” and involving “more than two victims.” I can find no evidence in the
presentence report nor anywhere else in the record to support these entries. In addition, the
Parole Guideline Data Entry Assessment lists defendant’s sentencing guidelines as 50 months to
100 months when, in fact, the trial court determined it to be 29 to 54 months.
This Court, like the trial court, however, does not have jurisdiction over the MDOC in the
context of this case and so we cannot order correction of these apparent errors. Rather, any such
relief must come through the grievance procedures set forth in MDOC Policy Directive
06.05.100, Parole Guidelines, p 2 (“[A] prisoner may challenge the calculation of his/her parole
-1-
guideline score, including the accuracy of the information used in calculating the score, by filing
a grievance pursuant to PD 03.02.130 ‘Prisoner/Parolee Grievances’”).
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-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.