PEOPLE OF MI V ADRIAN ORTA ESTRADA (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 25, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 326919 Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 14-000450-FC ADRIAN ORTA ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant. Before: OWENS, P.J., and SAWYER and SHAPIRO, JJ. SHAPIRO, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part) I concur with the majority except as to the sentencing issue. The trial court’s departure decision was based in large part on the fact that after defendant committed the subject crime the legislature amended the statute so as to now require a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for individuals convicted of the same offense. As a matter of law, the amended statute does not and cannot apply retroactively.1 Moreover, its consideration at sentencing is improper because “[s]entences must be individualized and tailored to fit the circumstances of the defendant and the case.” People v Colon, 250 Mich App 59, 64; 644 NW2d 790 (2002) (quotation omitted). The fact that the statute now requires a 25-year mandatory minimum is a fact that would apply to all pre-amendment defendants without regard for the individual offense or offender. For these reasons, I would remand for resentencing with instructions to the trial court to not consider the amended statute in its sentencing decision. /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 1 The statute, MCL 750.520b(2), was amended in 2006, and, as a defendant could face an increased punishment under the amended statute, retroactive application would violate the ex post facto clause of our constitution. See People v Slocum, 213 Mich App 239, 243; 539 NW2d 572 (1995). -1-
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.
