Michigan Supreme Court Term
Typos
Supreme Court Elections
2010 Appellate Bench Bar Conference
Pre-Arrest Silence and Tacit Admissions
Credibility Determinations at Ginther Hearings
Medical Malpractice Kerfuffle
Slip and Fall
Child Support and Termination of Parental Rights
Lost
Knife Length
People v Waterstone
United States v Comstock
Graham v Florida
What is Truth?
When a Prosecutor Voluntarily Dimisses a Case
People v Houthoofd
Streaming Oral Argument
Remand to a Different Judge
Disqualifying Prosecutor
Sex Offender Registration and HYTA
Doubling the sentence for drug offenses
Rights of Parents
Class Certification
Drinking and Driving
ARCHIVES
Confrontation Blog
Crim Law
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Direct Appeal (CA10 Criminal Cases)
Fourth Amendment
Have Opinion Will Travel
How Appealing
Michigan Bankruptcy Law
Michigan Collection Law
Michigan Construction Law
Michigan Drunk Driving
Michigan Elder Law
Michigan Health Care Law
Michigan Long Term Disability Law
Michigan Real Estate Law
Michigan Workers' Compensation Law
Military Veteran Law
Ninth Circuit Criminal Appeal
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law and Policy
Sixth Circuit Blog
Split Circuits
The Volokh Conspiracy
Wall Street Journal Law Blog
Law Offices Website
Blog Home
|
by Michael B. Skinner · Thursday October 1, 2009 10:41 am PERMALINK
People v Lowe stands for the simple proposition that when a trial court sentences a defendant under MCL 333.7413(2) as a repeat drug offender, it can double both the minimum and maximum sentences under Michigan's sentencing guidelines range. Lowe had hoped that it applied only to the maximum sentence, which would have left her eligible for parole much earlier than she now is. |