The Case Of People V. Mr2d 504

440 Words2 Pages

It was Ricky Franklin Smith fourth offense, in which he was known as a habitual offender. He pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering. During his hearing in the Court of Appeals, Smith suggested that he deserve a resentence due to the fact his charges was base upon his expunged juvenile criminal record. The Court of Appeals referred back to the case in People v. Price, 172 Mich App 396, 399-400; 431 NW2d 524 (1988) that suggested that in pursuant to MCR 5.913 when a juvenile record is expunged it cannot be used in a sentencing. Whereas, People v. Jones 173 Mich App 341, 343;433 NW2d 829 (1988) states that an expunged juvenile record can be included in an investigation report and in a sentencing(People v. Smith, 2017). Smith lawyer …show more content…

Therefore, Ricky Smith was sentenced to serve his time concurrently with the other sentence that he had encountered. However, in the case of People v. McFarlin, 389 Mich 557; 208 NW2d 504 (1973), it was suggested that a judge has the right to consider an adult offender's juvenile record, whereas the Probate Code suggests the probate *299 court cannot use a juvenile record as proper evidence against a child in any case in any civil, criminal, or other cause except under a Juveniles and Juvenile Division Chapter of the Probate Code(People v. Smith, 2017). Shortly after in 1978, the Court adopted JCR 13, in which provided automatic expungement juvenile offender records, providing within seven years afterward there is not a felony conviction(People v. Smith, 2017). The Panel of a different court has encountered this situation before, for instance in the People v. Price, 172 Mich App 396, 399-400; 431 NW2d 524 (1988) found that an automat expunge pursuant to MCR 5.913 will not use a juvenile record in court sentencing whereas, in the case of People v. Jones, 173 Mich App 341; 433 NW2d 829 (1988) suggests that a expunged juvenile record could be a factor in sentencing and included in the

Open Document