Whether respondents had a clear legal duty to apply special good time credits to petitioner’s assault with the intent to murder (AWIM) sentence; MCL 800.33(11); “Computed” & “accumulated”; Concurrent sentencing; Department of Corrections (DOC)

The court concluded that the trial court did not err by holding that respondents had a clear legal duty to apply special good time credits to petitioner’s AWIM sentence. Also, the act of applying the credits was ministerial in nature. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the writ of mandamus. Respondents (DOC and the DOC’s Time Computation Unit manager) argued that the trial court erred by holding that “they had a clear legal duty to apply the special good time credits to the maximum AWIM sentence because doing so violates MCL 800.33(11).” Respondents argued that “MCL 800.33(11) does not permit the DOC to apply special good time credits to petitioner’s AWIM sentence because these credits can only be applied to a prisoner’s longest concurrent sentence. Thus, respondents argue that good time credits only apply to one concurrent sentence.” However, the court noted that “the plain language of MCL 800.33(11) does not prohibit the DOC from applying good time credits to other concurrent sentences.” It determined that “respondents’ construction of the statute conflates the term ‘computed’ with ‘applied’ a term that does not appear in the statute.” Thus, it determined that “the good time credits earned on the longest concurrent sentence must be applied to the other concurrent sentence or sentences, so long as it is permitted by law.” It found that its conclusion was “entirely consistent with the proper operation of concurrent sentencing.” Petitioner was sentenced to 66 years and 8 months to 100 years for AWIM, to life imprisonment for kidnapping, and to 2 years for felony-firearm. “The felony-firearm sentence was to be served before the other two sentences, which were concurrent.” Thus, after he “served his felony-firearm sentence, petitioner began serving his sentences for AWIM and kidnapping. Because those sentences were concurrent and because petitioner was no longer serving a consecutive sentence, respondents had a clear legal duty under MCL 800.33(11) to calculate credits on the basis of the kidnapping sentence and to apply the credits to both concurrent sentences.” Affirmed.