Circuit Court LC No. 17-243894-FH
Before: Beckering, P.J., and Sawyer and Cameron, JJ.
appeals as of right following his jury trial conviction of
possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine, MCL
333.7403(2)(a)(5). Defendant was sentenced, as a fourth
habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 30 to 180 months'
imprisonment for possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine,
with zero days' credit for time served. We affirm.
12, 2017, defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine,
and on July 13, 2017, he was released on his own
recognizance. Defendant was on parole at the time of his
arrest. Defendant was rearrested on August 16, 2017, for
missing a court hearing, and on August 17, 2017, the district
court set a cash or surety bond of $5, 000. On August 31,
2017, defendant was released from jail after posting bond.
September 5, 2017, defendant was arrested again because he
tested positive for cocaine. Also on that date, a parole
detainer was signed asking the Monroe County Jail to hold
defendant "until further notice." On September 8,
2017, the trial court set a cash or surety bond of $25, 000.
On January 8, 2018, defendant was convicted by jury of
possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine. Defendant
remained in jail until his sentencing hearing on March 1,
2018. Defendant was sentenced to 30 to 180 months'
imprisonment with no jail credit.
argues that he is entitled to jail credit for time served
between July 12, 2017, and July 13, 2017, between August 16,
2017, and August 31, 2017, and between September 5, 2017, and
March 1, 2018, and that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to argue that defendant was entitled to jail credit
for these periods of time. We disagree.
party preserves an issue for appeal when it raises the issue
in the trial court and the court considers the issue.
People v Fyda, 288 Mich.App. 446, 460 n 35; 793
N.W.2d 712 (2010). Defendant did not argue in the trial court
that he was entitled to any jail credit. Thus, this issue is
unpreserved for appeal. Id.
avoid forfeiture of an unpreserved, nonconstitutional plain
error, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that:
(1) error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or
obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial
rights." People v Jones, 468 Mich. 345, 355;
662 N.W.2d 376 (2003). "To establish that a plain error
affected substantial rights, there must be a showing of
prejudice, i.e., that the error affected the outcome of the
lower-court proceedings." Id. at 356. This
Court reviews de novo issues of statutory interpretation.
People v Beard, __Mich App, __;__ N.W.2d__ (2019)
(Docket No. 346383, issued 4/25/2019); slip op at 3 n 3.
statute addressing jail credit for time served while awaiting
Whenever any person is hereafter convicted of any crime
within this state and has served any time in jail prior to
sentencing because of being denied or unable to furnish bond
for the offense of which he is convicted, the trial court in
imposing sentence shall specifically grant credit against the
sentence for such time served in jail prior to sentencing.
People v Idziak, 484 Mich. 549, 552; 773 N.W.2d 616
(2009), our Supreme Court announced that there is an
exception to the jail credit statute:
We hold that, under MCL 791.238(2),  the parolee resumes
serving his earlier sentence on the date he is arrested for
the new criminal offense. As long as time remains on the
parolee's earlier sentence, he remains incarcerated,
regardless of his eligibility for bond or his ability to
furnish it. Since the parolee is not being held in jail
"because of being denied or unable to furnish
bond," the jail credit statute does not apply.
case presents a question that Idziak did not
squarely address. What happens when a parolee is held before
sentencing because he is unable to furnish bond and no parole
detainer is in effect? Here, defendant was jailed between
July 12, 2017, and July 13, 2017, and between August 16,
2017, and August 31, 2017, before, according to the
prosecutor, a parole detainer was signed after
defendant's arrest on September 5, 2017. While
Idziak clearly holds that defendant is not entitled
to jail credit from the time the parole detainer was signed
on September 5, 2017, until the date ...