12-09-2005, 03:13 PM
What does truth in sentence means? I`m trying frin something on line, but I didnt find anything
I heard that this woman named Jennifer Granholm (I`m not sure is that is the correct name) is going to sign a paper saying that will be no TIS for non violent crimes. What does that mean?
12-09-2005, 03:16 PM
Truth in Sentencing was a law passed a few years ago taking away good time for Michigan Prisoners. They now have to serve their minimal sentences before being considered for release.
Jennifer Granholm is Michigan's Governor. She does not have the power to change the law.
01-02-2006, 01:08 AM
OK; my man's erd and max date are one in the same, does that mean he only has to do 85% and be out on a tether or parole for the balance (15%) or will he get out on the min/max date? Also in Feb. 06 when they vote to keep TIS or abolish it, what will that mean for the inmates under the TIS law?
01-02-2006, 04:35 AM
If his ERD and max are the same date he'll get out on that date with no parole. There is no indication on the state of Michigan website that the TIS is going to be voted on in February... it is still in committee.
01-02-2006, 08:04 AM
Here is the link to the explanation of Truth in Sentencing
Here is the link to the billwatch for TIS to be abolished for non violent offenders
In the 2nd thread you will find a link describing what the new intorduced law is. It has yet to go to vote, nor has it been put on the calendar for vote.
Hope this helps.
01-03-2006, 06:02 PM
Well I wish it (the TIS bill) would hurry and get out of the committe; passed, approved, and acted on all rolled into one so everybody's s o (significant other) can come home pdq. Also since my boos erd/max date are the same then that means I don't have to worry about somebody coming to inspect our house. Well that + even though I wouldn't mind if he'd be getting out that much sooner. oh well (sigh...moan....)
01-10-2006, 01:34 PM
The statutory sentencing guidelines were enacted by 1998 PA 31716 to be
used for all felony offenses17 committed on or after January 1, 1999,
for which there is sentencing discretion.18 The enactment of the
guidelines was tie-barred to the adoption of another legislative
sentencing policy requiring that offenders serve at least the entire
minimum prison sentence imposed by the court and precluding any early
release for good behavior or otherwiseG«Ųa policy popularly called
In contrast to the judicial guidelines used from 1984 to 1998,20 the
statutory sentencing guidelines reflect policy decisions made by the
Commission and adopted by the Legislature regarding the appropriate
length of the minimum term of a sentence. The statutory direction to
the Commission was to develop guidelines that would:
1)provide for the protection of the public
2)treat offenses against the person more severely than other offenses
3)include guidelines for habitual offenders
4)be "proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the
offenderG«÷s prior criminal record"
5)"reduce sentencing disparities based on factors other than offense
characteristics and offender characteristics and ensure that offenders
with similar offense and offender characteristics receive substantially
6)"specify the circumstances under which a term of imprisonment is
proper and the circumstances under which intermediate sanctions are
proper" MCL 769.33; MSA 28.1097(3.3).
In addition, there are several other statutory provisions that mandate
for time served for all criminal defendants. A criminal defendant must be
granted credit for:
G«ů time spent in jail due to inability to post bond, MCL 769.11b;
G«ů time spent in a juvenile facility prior to sentencing because of
being denied or unable to furnish bond, MCL 764.27a(5); see
also People v Thomas, 58 Mich App 9, 10G«Ű11 (1975);
time spent in custody during competency evaluations and
treatment, MCL 330.2042; see also People v Gravlin, 52 Mich
App 467, 469 (1974); and
of a case in
was held to be
G«ů time spent in jail or prison on a void sentence that is set aside:
time must be credited against a new sentence imposed for a
conviction G«£based upon facts arising out of the earlier void
conviction,G«• MCL 769.11a.*
Sentence credit under MCL 769.11b must be limited to jail time served for
the offense of which the defendant is convicted. A defendant is not
to credit for time served on unrelated charges committed while out on bond.
People v Prieskorn, 424 Mich 327, 340 (1985).
23.3 Cruel or Unusual Punishment
In People v Launsburry, 217 Mich App 358, 363G«Ű65 (1996), the Court of
Appeals held that imposing a mandatory life sentence without parole on a
juvenile convicted of first-degree felony murder does not constitute cruel
unusual punishment under the Michigan Constitution. In Launsburry, the
Court noted that to determine whether a punishment is G«£cruel or unusual,G«•
several factors must be analyzed, including the goal of rehabilitation. Id.
363, citing People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15 (1992). The Court in Launsburry
noted that MCL 769.1(3) required a sentencing court to consider a
prospects for rehabilitation at a juvenile sentencing hearing. Id. at 364.
Launsburry was decided prior to the effective date of statutory amendments
that require adult sentencing for juveniles convicted of first-degree
following G«£automatic waiverG«• proceedings. See 1996 PA 247G«Ű248. No
published case has addressed a G«£cruel or unusual punishmentG«• challenge
under the amended statute. See, however, People v Fernandez, 427 Mich
321, 339 (1986) (the goal of rehabilitation is not a consideration where
sentence is mandatory, non-parolable life imprisonment). See also Foster v
Withrow, 159 F Supp 2d 629, 643G«Ű46 (ED Mich, 2001) (a sentence of
life imprisonment for first-degree murder imposed upon a juvenile
does not violate the United States ConstitutionG«÷s prohibition of G«£cruel and
23.4 Alternative Sentences for Major Controlled Substance
Possession of 650 grams or more. MCL 769.1(5) and MCL 769.1(12)
provide that if an individual under the circuit courtG«÷s jurisdiction in an
G«£automatic waiverG«• or G«£traditional waiverG«• proceeding is convicted of a
violation or conspiracy to commit a violation of MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(i)
(possession of 650 grams or more of a Schedule 1 or 2 narcotic or cocaine),
the court must determine whether the best interests of the public would be
Section 15.6, for a discussion of
what constitutes G«£substantial and compelling reasonsG«• under these statutes.
G«£Assaultive crimeG«• means any of the following offenses:
assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder,
Basically, the court has to determine if there is G«£substantial and
compelling reasonsG«• to enforce mandated sentencing with a defendant and not
allow for time served prior to conviction. Unfortunately, all felony
assault violations fall under this guideline so that's why he must serve