|
No. 121310
| The
People of the State of Michigan |
|
Jerrold
Schrotenboer (517)788-4283 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Jackson
-- Perlos, A.)
|
|
|
| Gerald Lee Babcock, |
|
Bruce A. Barton (517) 780-0800 |
|
Defendant-Appellee.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan Amicus
Curiae Brief>>
Background
The defendant, Gerald Babcock, was 24 years old when he sexually abused
his 12-year-old cousin. Babcock was charged with one count of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct. He pled guilty to two counts of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct. The statutory guidelines provide that the minimum
sentence range for that offense is 36 to 71 months. Jackson County Circuit
Judge Alexander Perlos placed Babcock on three years' probation, imposed
a year in jail, and suspended the sentence after 60 days. The judge
stated that he thought the statutory guidelines were "too harsh."
He also noted that Babcock had no prior felony convictions, and stated
that Babcock could receive treatment in the community with the goal
of rehabilitating him. The prosecutor appealed. In a published decision,
the Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded the case. The
trial judge's reasons were not compelling so as to justify a sentence
that was more lenient than the guidelines range, the appellate panel
stated. On remand, Judge Perlos again gave Babcock probation. The judge
cited Babcock's ill health, the fact that he was the primary caretaker
of a mentally and physically disabled brother, and the fact that Babcock
complied with probation conditions during the interval between sentence
and resentence. The judge also stated that society would be better served
by probation. The prosecutor again appealed, but the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's ruling. The court said it was bound to affirm
the sentence because it could not find that the trial judge had abused
his discretion. The prosecutor appeals.
|
