Following
a bench trial, the trial court found the defendant guilty of second-degree
arson, MCL 750.73, and preparation to burn a dwelling, MCL 750.79(1)(d)(vi),
for setting fire to his estranged wife’s mobile home. The trial court sentenced defendant as a third-offense
habitual offender to 12 to 40 years in prison for second-degree arson and 5 to
10 years in prison for preparation to burn, with the two sentences running
concurrently. The Court of Appeals, in a
2-1 unpublished opinion, affirmed the defendant’s convictions but vacated his
sentences and remanded for resentencing due to errors in the scoring of the guidelines
minimum sentence range. Court of Appeals
Judge Shapiro concurred in part and dissented in part, explaining that he would
have vacated the defendant’s conviction for preparation to burn a dwelling on
double jeopardy grounds. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument
on the application to address whether the defendant’s convictions under
MCL 750.73 and MCL 750.79(1)(d)(vi) violate double jeopardy. The parties were specifically directed to
address: (1) whether the
Legislature expressed a clear intent to allow or disallow dual convictions for
both crimes based on the same conduct, and (2) if not, whether the
same-elements test requires vacating the lesser conviction. See People v Miller,
498 Mich 13, 19 (2015).