
    PEOPLE v CLARK
    Docket No. 322852.
    Submitted March 8, 2016, at Grand Rapids.
    Decided April 19, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.
    Tyrone M. Clark pleaded guilty in the Ottawa Circuit Court of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iu), with a sentence enhancement as a repeat drug offender, MCL 333.7413(2). In 2005, defendant was convicted in federal court of certain felonies for which that court sentenced him to a term of years in prison followed by a three-year term of supervised release as allowed under 18 USC 3583(a). At the sentencing hearing in this case, defendant inaccurately indicated on the record that he was on parole from the 2005 federal convictions when he committed the instant offenses, rather than on federal supervised release. Relying on MCL 768.7a(2), which states that the sentence imposed for any felony committed while on parole for a previous offense must be consecutive to the remaining portion of the term of imprisonment imposed for that previous offense, the court, Jon H. Hulsing, J., ordered defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to the sentence imposed by the federal court for the federal conviction. Defendant appealed by leave granted.
    The Court of Appeals held:
    
    1. Michigan uses an indeterminate sentence scheme in which a defendant receives a minimum sentence and a maximum sentence. The sentencing court has no authority to modify a sentence once a valid indeterminate sentence has been imposed. Instead, the Parole Board has authority to grant parole to qualified prison inmates after serving a portion of an indeterminate prison term, and the board may rescind parole for cause up until the prisoner is discharged from parole. In contrast, federal law uses a determinate sentence scheme in which a defendant is sentenced to a fixed term. Unlike parole in Michigan, which replaces a portion of a defendant’s prison sentence, federal supervised release is a separate term imposed by a federal court at the initial sentencing, and it is served following the completion of a definite term in prison.
    2. In Michigan, consecutive sentences may be imposed only if specifically authorized by statute. Under MCL 768.7a(2), if a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a felony committed while on parole from a sentence for a previous offense, the term of imprisonment imposed for the later offense begins to run when the remaining portion of the term of imprisonment imposed for the previous offense expires. MCL 768.7a(2) is clear and unambiguous; it authorizes consecutive sentencing only when a felony is committed while on parole from a sentence for a previous offense, and it must not be judicially amended by reading the statute to include felonies committed while on federal supervised release for a previous conviction. In other words, the statutory provision does not authorize a trial court to impose a consecutive sentence on a person who is convicted and sentenced for a felony committed while on federal supervised release for a previous conviction. Because defendant was on federal supervised release when he committed the offenses in this case and not on parole, the trial court erred by ordering defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to the remaining portion of his federal sentence.
    3. Defendant failed to preserve his claim that he is entitled under MCL 769.11b to jail credit for the time he was on supervised release or in prison for his previous federal conviction. Defendant failed to establish plain error occurred that affected his substantial rights when the trial court did not award sentence credit; he did not specify the number of days to which he believed he was entitled and was unable to demonstrate that he was incarcerated before sentencing in this case as a result of a denial of or inability to furnish bond.
    Reversed and remanded.
    O’Connell, P.J., dissenting, disagreed with the majority’s analysis of MCL 768.7a(2). Because supervised release is defined as federal parole in Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed) and both terms are imposed because the defendant committed a previous offense, the Legislature intended MCL 768.7a(2) to authorize consecutive sentencing when a defendant commits a later felony while on federal supervised release for a previous federal conviction. Judge O’Connell would have affirmed defendant’s sentence.
    Criminal Law — Sentencing — Consecutive-Sentencing Statute — No Application for Federal Supervised Release.
    Under MCL 768.7a(2), if a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a felony committed while on parole from a sentence for a previous offense, the term of imprisonment imposed for the later offense begins to run when the remaining portion of the term of imprisonment imposed for the previous offense expires; MCL 768.7a(2) does not authorize a court to impose a consecutive sentence when a defendant commits a crime while he or she is on federal supervised release for a previous federal conviction; a federal term of supervised release is not the same as parole for purposes of MCL 768.7a(2).
    
      Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lind-strom, Solicitor General, Ronald J. Frantz, Prosecuting Attorney, and Gregory J. Babbitt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Dory A. Baron for defendant.
    Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and MARKEY and MURRAY, JJ.
   MARKEY, J.

Defendant appeals by leave granted a judgment of sentence in which the trial court ordered defendant, as a repeat drug offender, MCL 333.7413(2), to serve 38 to 240 months in prison for his plea-based conviction of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iu). The court ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to a federal sentence he was serving for a previous conviction. Defendant argues that because his federal supervised release did not constitute “parole” under MCL 768.7a(2), the trial court erred by ordering that his sentence in this case run consecutively to the federal sentence. Defendant also asserts the trial court erred by not awarding him credit for the time he served before sentencing. We agree in part and remand for resentencing.

I. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

As a result of a police investigation between July 2013 and September 2013, defendant was charged with delivering less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iu), and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d). The prosecution notified defendant that these charges were subject to second-offense sentence enhancement pursuant to MCL 333.7413(2).

At the time of defendant’s arrest, he was on federal supervised release because of his 2005 conviction for possession of cocaine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant was sentenced on these federal offenses to 110 months in federal prison followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant remained incarcerated until his term of supervised release began on August 16, 2012; the term was scheduled to expire on August 5, 2015.

On February 28, 2014, defendant pleaded guilty in the present case to delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, second offense, in exchange for the dismissal of the possession-of-marijuana charge. The prosecutor also agreed to not bring further charges in this case (e.g., fleeing and eluding). In establishing a factual basis for his plea, defendant admitted that he delivered cocaine to another individual on July 2, 2013, and that he had a prior conviction of possession of marijuana. The trial court accepted defendant’s guilty plea.

At his sentencing proceeding on May 14, 2014, defendant admitted that he had been on “parole” at the time he committed the. charged offense. But defendant also stated that he believed the recommended sentence was “absurd” because he was never informed about a “mandatory consecutive sentence.” The trial court explained to defendant that Michigan law required “any offense committed while on parole status ... be consecutive to parole.” Thus, when imposing sentence, the trial court explained that the ordered period of imprisonment “begins upon the conclusion of [the sentence for] the crime for which you were on parole.”

On May 23, 2014, defendant moved in propria persona for resentencing on the basis that he was not on parole at the time of sentencing. The trial court denied defendant’s motion on May 29, 2014. In denying the motion, the trial court noted that defendant’s presentence investigation report (PSIR) confirmed that defendant “was on parole status” when he committed this offense. The PSIR also states that defendant was sentenced in federal court to 20 months’ imprisonment as a result of a “parole violation” for his involvement in the instant offense.

Defendant filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in this Court on July 23, 2014. On August 27, 2014, this Court denied leave to appeal “for lack of merit in the grounds presented.” Defendant subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which issued an order directing the prosecutor to file an answer to defendant’s application. After plaintiff did so, the Court considered defendant’s application for leave to appeal and remanded to this Court “for consideration as on leave granted.” People v Clark, 498 Mich 880 (2015).

II. ANALYSIS

A. PRESERVATION OF ISSUES

To preserve a sentencing issue for appeal, a defendant must raise the issue “at sentencing, in a proper motion for resentencing, or in a proper motion to remand filed in the court of appeals.” MCR 6.429(C); see also People v McLaughlin, 258 Mich App 635, 670; 672 NW2d 860 (2003). In a motion for resentencing, defendant argued that he was not subject to consecutive sentencing because he was not on “parole” at the time the offense was committed. Therefore, this issue is preserved.

However, defendant’s sentence-credit argument is unpreserved because he did not request credit for time served at sentencing or object to the trial court order that denied him sentence credit. See People v Meshell, 265 Mich App 616, 638; 696 NW2d 754 (2005).

B. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A consecutive sentence cannot be imposed under Michigan law in the absence of statutory authority. People v Chambers, 430 Mich 217, 222; 421 NW2d 903 (1988). Therefore, whether a trial court may impose consecutive sentences is a question of statutory interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. People v Gonzalez, 256 Mich App 212, 229; 663 NW2d 499 (2003).

With respect to defendant’s argument regarding sentence credit, this Court’s review is limited to plain error affecting substantial rights because the issue was not preserved. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Relief is available only when (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, meaning clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceedings. Id. Additionally, reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

c. DISCUSSION

Because we conclude that a federal term of “supervised release” is not the same as “parole” under Michigan’s criminal justice system, we necessarily conclude that MCL 768.7a(2) does not provide statutory authority for defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to the federal sentence for which he was on supervised release when he committed the instant offense. Consequently, we remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. With respect to defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by denying him sentence credit, however, defendant has failed to establish plain error warranting relief.

The PSIR states that defendant was sentenced to “110 months with 3 years SRT” for his federal convictions. A three-year term of supervised release is consistent with the provisions of 18 USC 3583(b). Despite this reference to supervised release, the remainder of the PSIR refers only to defendant’s being on “federal parole.” Likewise, at sentencing, the parties— including defendant—used the term “federal parole,” as opposed to supervised release when discussing his status at the time he committed the instant offense. The parties agree that this was a mischaracterization in that at the time he committed the instant offense, defendant was on federal supervised release with respect to his federal convictions.

There is currently no binding caselaw addressing whether a consecutive sentence may be ordered under MCL 768.7a(2) for an individual who was on federal supervised release, as opposed to parole, at the time of the offense. A number of unpublished opinions of this Court have suggested that parole and federal supervised release are not identical. See, e.g., People v Kirk, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued July 10, 2014 (Docket No. 314416), p 6 (“Presuming, without deciding, that the trial court clearly erred when it found that [the defendant] was on parole rather than supervised release . . . .”) (emphasis added); People v Shaw, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued July 2, 1999 (Docket No. 210717), p 4 (reviewing the defendant’s argument “under the assumption that he was not subject to . . . consecutive sentencing on account of his federal supervised release status”). And one former justice of our Supreme Court opined in her dissent from an order denying a defendant’s application for leave to appeal that the same argument advanced by defendant in this case was meritorious in that case. See People v Williams, 463 Mich 942 (2000) (CORRIGAN, J., dissenting) (“[The] defendant argues that MCL 768.7a(2). . . does not prescribe consecutive sentencing for a state offense he committed while on ‘supervised release’ rather than ‘parole’ from a federal term of imprisonment. The plain text of the statute supports [the] defendant’s view.”).

In Michigan, a consecutive sentence may be imposed only if specifically authorized by statute. Chambers, 430 Mich at 222; People v Stead, 270 Mich App 550, 551; 716 NW2d 324 (2006). When the trial court ordered defendant’s current delivery of cocaine sentence to run consecutively to his federal sentence, it relied on MCL 768.7a(2), which provides:

If a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a felony committed while the person was on parole from a sentence for a previous offense, the term of imprisonment imposed for the later offense shall begin to run at the expiration of the remaining portion of the term of imprisonment imposed for the previous offense. [Emphasis added.]

When interpreting statutes, our primary goal is to “ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” People v Armisted, 295 Mich App 32, 37; 811 NW2d 47 (2011). This Court first reviews the specific language of the statute because the Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning that it plainly expressed. Id. Unless a word or phrase is a term of art or defined by the statute, every word or phrase of a statute should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. MCL 8.3a; People v Thompson, 477 Mich 146, 151; 730 NW2d 708 (2007). A dictionary may be consulted regarding the common, generally accepted meaning of a word. Id. at 151-152; People v Spann, 250 Mich App 527, 530; 655 NW2d 251 (2002). When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, this Court assumes the Legislature intended the plain meaning it expressed, and we enforce the statute as written. People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50; 753 NW2d 78 (2008). Otherwise, a statute is subject to judicial construction only when it is ambiguous, i.e., either two provisions irreconcilably conflict or a provision is equally susceptible to more than one meaning. Gardner, 482 Mich at 50 n 12. If judicial construction is appropriate because of ambiguity, we must construe the statutory language reasonably, keeping in mind the apparent purpose of the statute. People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184, 205; 783 NW2d 67 (2010). Finally, nothing may be read into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intention of the Legislature as derived from the language of the statute itself. People v Breidenbach, 489 Mich 1, 10; 798 NW2d 738 (2011).

The parties do not dispute the general meaning of MCL 768.7a(2) insofar as it mandates a consecutive sentence for a later offense when that offense is committed while the individual is on parole for a previous offense. See People v Phillips, 217 Mich App 489, 498-499; 552 NW2d 487 (1996) (interpreting MCL 768.7a(2) and holding that the sentence of a defendant convicted of a felony while on parole for a federal offense must be served consecutively to the remainder of the federal offense). The parties only dispute whether a sentence of supervised release for a previous federal conviction comes within the meaning of the term “parole” as used in the Michigan consecutive-sentencing statute: defendant argues that the term “parole” does not include federal supervised release, while plaintiff argues that it does. We note that while the Phillips Court determined MCL 768.7a(2) applied to individuals on parole from federal offenses, the opinion did not address federal supervised release. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we conclude that the two terms are not interchangeable.

There is a basic difference between Michigan’s criminal justice system and the federal criminal justice system. Michigan, in general, employs an indeterminate sentencing scheme when a person is convicted of a crime that requires imprisonment. See People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 380 n 18; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). An “indeterminate sentence” is one “ ‘of an unspecified duration, such as one for a term of 10 to 20 years.’ ” Id., quoting People v Drohan, 475 Mich 140, 153 n 10; 715 NW2d 778 (2006), in turn quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed). “[UJnder an indeterminate scheme, a defendant receives a minimum sentence and a maximum sentence. In Michigan, for instance, the law provides that the maximum portion of a defendant’s indeterminate sentence must be the ‘maximum penalty provided by law ....’” People v Harper, 479 Mich 599, 612; 739 NW2d 523 (2007), quoting MCL 769.8(1).

Once a Michigan judge imposes a valid indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with the Department of Corrections (DOC), the sentencing court has no authority to modify the sentence. People v Holder, 483 Mich 168, 170, 177; 767 NW2d 423 (2009). Rather, the DOC Parole Board is vested with the authority to grant “parole” to qualified prison inmates. In re Parole of Bivings, 242 Mich App 363, 372; 619 NW2d 163 (2000); MCL 791.231 et seq. The Parole Board has the discretion to grant or deny parole and to discharge the prisoner if the prisoner satisfactorily completes the terms of parole. People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549, 584-585; 773 NW2d 616 (2009). Parole is a conditional release; a paroled prisoner remains technically in the custody of the DOC but is permitted to leave the confinement of prison. Holder, 483 Mich at 172-173; People v Raihala, 199 Mich App 577, 579; 502 NW2d 755 (1993). Until a prisoner is discharged from parole, the Parole Board may rescind parole for cause if a parole violation has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, MCL 791.240a, and may amend an existing order of parole, MCL 791.236(3). Holder, 483 Mich at 173. Parole in Michigan has been described by our Supreme Court as follows:

“The purpose of a parole is to keep the prisoner in legal custody while permitting him to live beyond the prison inclosure [sic] so that he may have an opportunity to show that he can refrain from committing crime. It is a conditional release, the condition being that if he makes good he will receive an absolute discharge from the balance of his sentence; but if he does not make good he will be returned to serve his unexpired time. The absolute discharge is something more than a release from parole. It is a remission of the remaining portion of his sentence. Like a pardon, it is a gift from the executive, and like any other gift it does not become effective until it is delivered and accepted. After delivery it cannot be recalled.” [Id. at 174, quoting In re Eddinger, 236 Mich 668, 670; 211 NW 54 (1926) (emphasis omitted); see also Raihala, 199 Mich App at 579.]

Thus, under Michigan law, “parole” is consistent with the definition of that term in Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed): “The conditional release of a prisoner from imprisonment before the full sentence has been served.” It is also consistent with the first pertinent definition of “parole” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed) of “a conditional release of a prisoner serving an indeterminate or unexpired sentence.” A prisoner becomes “parole eligible” after serving the minimum term of his or her indeterminate sentence, and the Parole Board then has jurisdiction to determine “whether the prisoner is worthy of parole.” Idziak, 484 Mich at 559 (emphasis in original). So, parole is inherently a part of the original sentence imposed by the trial court. Id. at 559 n 7. But once sentenced to imprisonment, the prisoner is under the jurisdiction of the DOC and the Parole Board. Holder, 483 Mich at 174-176; In re Parole of Bivings, 242 Mich App at 372-373.

In contrast to Michigan, a person convicted of a federal crime may be ordered to serve a determinate prison sentence. See Lockridge, 498 Mich at 371; United States v Booker, 543 US 220, 231-232; 125 S Ct 738; 160 L Ed 2d 621 (2005). “[U]nder a determinate scheme, conviction for an offense typically exposes a defendant to a sentence of a fixed term lying in a standard range for that offense.” Harper, 479 Mich at 611. “Thus, a determinate system is a sentencing system in which the defendant receives a certain and fixed sentence and is subject to serving that precise sentence. An indeterminate system is a sentencing system in which the defendant receives a singular maximum sentence, and, in some systems such as Michigan’s, may be released on parole before serving that maximum.” Lockridge, 498 Mich at 410 n 7 (Markman, J., dissenting). “Supervised release is a unique method of post-confinement supervision invented by the Congress for a series of sentencing reforms . . . .” Gozlon-Peretz v United States, 498 US 395, 407; 111 S Ct 840; 112 L Ed 2d 919 (1991). “Supervised release” replaced “special parole,” which was repealed by the sentencing reforms that Congress enacted. Id. at 397. “Special parole,” similar to parole under Michigan law, “was ‘a period of supervision served upon completion of a prison term’ and administered by the United States Parole Commission.” Id. at 399 (citation omitted). “Supervised release” is imposed by the sentencing court at the initial sentencing to be served following the completion of a definite term of prison confinement. 18 USC 3583(a); 18 USC 3624(e). Unlike parole in Michigan, when a federal court imposes a term of supervised release that follows a determinate prison term, it retains jurisdiction to modify, terminate, extend, or revoke that term of supervised release. 18 USC 3583(e).

In sum, even though the purpose of each is similar, there are significant differences between parole— under the plain meaning of that term and as practiced in Michigan—and federal supervised release. The most noteworthy difference is that an individual on parole is not sentenced to a term of parole but rather, after serving a portion of an indeterminate prison sentence, he or she becomes eligible and may be granted parole by the Parole Board. Idziak, 484 Mich at 559, 584-585. Successful completion of parole and discharge has the effect of remitting the remaining portion of the previously imposed prison sentence. Holder, 483 Mich at 173. On the other hand, supervised release is imposed at the initial sentencing to be served following completion of imprisonment and is similar to a period of probation that the sentencing court maintains jurisdiction to modify, terminate, extend, or revoke “and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release . . . 18 USC 3583(e)(3); see also People v McCuller, 479 Mich 672, 739; 739 NW2d 563 (2007) (KELLY, J., dissenting) (comparing supervised release to probation by indicating that the former “is imposed in addition to imprisonment, rather than instead of it”), and Johnson v United States, 529 US 694, 725; 120 S Ct 1795; 146 L Ed 2d 727 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Unlike parole, which replaced a portion of a defendant’s prison sentence, supervised release is a separate term imposed at the time of initial sentencing.”). Because MCL 768.7a(2) clearly and unambiguously refers only to parole, we must enforce the statutory provision as written. Gardner, 482 Mich at 50. We may not amend the statute by reading into it the term “supervised release.” Breidenbach, 489 Mich at 10.

Our conclusion is further supported by the principle that “[t]he Legislature is presumed to be aware of and legislate in harmony with existing laws when enacting new laws.” People v Rahilly, 247 Mich App 108, 112; 635 NW2d 227 (2001). Supervised release was created by Congress in 1984 when it enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA). See 18 USC 3551 et seq.; Gozlon-Peretz, 498 US at 397, 399-400, 408. The SRA provisions regarding supervised release became effective on November 1, 1987. Id. at 398, 400 n 4, 403. The SRA “provide [d] for the total revamping of the sentencing procedures in the federal judicial system,” and “ [i] t replace [d] a system of indeterminate sentences and the possibility of parole with determinate sentencing and no parole.” Walden v United States Parole Comm, 114 F3d 1136, 1138 (CA 11, 1997). In 1988, after the enactment of the SRA and the effective date of its provisions regarding supervised release, Michigan’s Legislature amended MCL 768.7a to include MCL 768.7a(2). 1988 PA 48, effective June 1, 1988; Idziak, 484 Mich at 557-558. Thus, the SRA was already in existence when MCL 768.7a(2) was enacted. Because the Legislature is presumed to be aware of existing laws, Rahilly, 247 Mich App at 112, this Court may presume that the Legislature was aware of federal supervised release, yet did not include it in the language of MCL 768.7a(2). In comparison, the Legislature more recently included the term “supervised release” alongside the word “parole” when it provided standards for a petition to discontinue sex offender registration. See MCL 28.728c(12)(d) and (13)(e) (requiring that the “petitioner successfully completed his or her assigned periods of supervised release, probation or parole”). Had the Legislature intended to do so, it could have added supervised release to MCL 768.7a(2). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred by ordering that defendant’s sentence run consecutively to his federal sentence.

Defendant also argues that he is entitled to credit for time served with respect to his sentence for the instant offense. However, because defendant failed to include this issue in his statement of issues presented, he has not properly presented this argument for appeal. See People v Anderson, 284 Mich App 11, 16; 772 NW2d 792 (2009). Additionally, defendant’s argument is vague in that he does not specify the number of days for which he believes he is entitled to sentence credit, and he fails to explain why he is entitled to credit. “An appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give only cursory treatment of an issue with little or no citation of supporting authority.” People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 587; 629 NW2d 411 (2001) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).

To the extent defendant’s argument is based on his being on supervised release or incarcerated for his federal convictions, we find it without merit. MCL 769.11b governs a defendant’s entitlement to sentence credit. It provides:

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.

Under this statute, a defendant is entitled to jail credit only when the defendant is incarcerated before his or her conviction “because of being denied or unable to furnish bond for [that] offense of which he is convicted . . . .” Id.; People v Prieskorn, 424 Mich 327, 343-344; 381 NW2d 646 (1985). The statute “neither requires nor permits sentence credit in cases . . . where a defendant is released on bond following entry of charges arising from one offense and, pending disposition of those charges, is subsequently incarcerated as a result of charges arising out of an unrelated offense or circumstance . . . .” Prieskorn, 424 Mich at 340; see also Idziak, 484 Mich at 562-563 (holding that the jail credit statute does not apply when a parolee commits a felony while on parole and is convicted and sentenced to a new term of imprisonment). Stated differently, under MCL 769.11b, when a parolee is “required to remain in jail pending . . . resolution of [a] new criminal charge for reasons independent of his eligibility for or ability to furnish bond for the new offense, the jail credit statute does not apply.” Idziak, 484 Mich at 567.

In this case, defendant advances no argument regarding the specific number of days for which he believes he is entitled to jail credit for this offense. He also fails to support his argument with any showing that he was incarcerated before sentencing in this case as a result of a denial of or inability to furnish bond. MCL 769.11b. Accordingly, defendant has failed to establish plain error occurred that affected his substantial rights. Carines, 460 Mich at 763.

We reverse and remand for resentencing. We do not retain jurisdiction.

MURRAY, J., concurred with Markey, J.

O’CONNELL, P.J.

(dissenting). At issue in this case is whether federal “supervised release” falls within the meaning of “parole” for the purposes of MCL 768.7a(2). Because I conclude that it does, I would affirm.

We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. People v Williams, 475 Mich 245, 250; 716 NW2d 208 (2006). However, because defendant did not preserve this issue, he is only entitled to relief if he can establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights. See People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

MCL 768.7a(2) provides that a person who commits a felony while on parole is subject to consecutive sentencing for the new crime:

If a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a felony committed while the person was on parole from a sentence for a previous offense, the term of imprisonment imposed for the later offense shall begin to run at the expiration of the remaining portion of the term of imprisonment imposed for the previous offense.

We may consult a dictionary definition to determine the commonly understood meaning of undefined terms. People v Spann, 250 Mich App 527, 530; 655 NW2d 251 (2002). “Supervised release” is defined as “[flederal parole, which may be imposed in addition to a prison term.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed), p 1481. In both cases, the sentence has been imposed “for a previous offense.” And a defendant on federal supervised release is prohibited from committing state crimes, 18 USC § 3583(d), as is a defendant on parole, see MCL 791.238(5).

Because supervised release is defined as federal parole and both are imposed for the same reason, i.e., the defendant committed a previous offense, I would conclude that the Legislature intended the MCL 768.7a reference to “on parole” to include federal supervised release. To the extent that supervised release and parole are different (whether the release is in addition to or a replacement of incarceration), I conclude that this distinction is without difference for the common understanding of MCL 768.7a. Defendant has not shown a plain error affecting his substantial rights.

I would affirm. 
      
       18 USC 3583(a) provides that in all cases a federal court may, and in certain cases must, when “imposing a sentence to a term of imprisonment for a felony or a misdemeanor,. . . include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment.. .
     
      
       Abrogated on other grounds in Lockridge, 498 Mich 358.
     
      
       As amended by 2011 PA 18, effective July 1, 2011.
     