PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES ALOYSIUS SKUBE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 17, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 194982
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 92-001516 FC
JAMES ALOYSIUS SKUBE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and White and Young, Jr., JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal as of right returns to this Court after remand. In a prior appeal, this Court affirmed
defendant’s jury convictions of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549, and possession
of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2), but remanded to the
trial court for articulation of the reasons for imposing a life sentence on the murder conviction, which
was a departure from the recommended guidelines range of five to fifteen y
ears. People v Skube,
unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 13, 1995 (Docket No. 165278).
On remand, the trial court stated that a departure from the recommended guidelines range was
appropriate because (1) defendant “callously murdered the victim with the rifle within the range of
witnesses,” (2) the slaying took place on a residential street in front of several witnesses, including some
young boys who were playing across the street, (3) defendant “displayed a complete disregard for
moral and ethical rules,” and (4) defendant’s alleged failure to control his alcohol consumption was not a
mitigating factor.
The scope of the second appeal is limited by the scope of the remand. People v Jones, 394
Mich 434, 435-436; 231 NW2d 649 (1975); People v Kincade (On Remand), 206 Mich App 477,
481; 522 NW2d 880 (1994). This Court did not require a full resentencing, and the trial court did not
conduct a resentencing. Accordingly, two of defendant’s arguments, that the trial court erred in failing
to accord him the right of allocution on remand and in failing to obtain an updated presentence report,
are without merit, as such issues apply only where a full sentencing or resentencing occurs. See MCR
6.425(D)(2)(b) and (c).
-1
The reasons articulated by the trial court in support of its decision to depart from the sentence
guidelines have record support and are not clearly erroneous. Moreover, defendant’s sentence for
second-degree murder does not represent an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. The offense involved
circumstances not accounted for at all, or inadequately accounted for, in formulating the guidelines. See
People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321; 532 NW2d 508 (1995). The sentence is proportionate to the
seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender. See People v Milbourn,
435 Mich 630, 635-636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).
However, there is no indication in the record that the trial court explained its reasons for
departure on the sentencing information report, as required by MCR 6.425(D)(1). See People v
Edgett, 220 Mich App 686, 688-689; 560 NW2d 360 (1996). Accordingly, we remand to the trial
court for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to explain its reasons for departure on the
sentencing information report in compliance with MCR 6.425(D)(1). Defendant’s sentences are
affirmed in all other respects.
Defendant’s sentences are affirmed but the matter is remanded for compliance with MCR
6.425(D)(1) in accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-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.
