Case Title: People v. Miller

Citation: 450 Mich. 955, 547 N.W.2d 646

Docket Number: 102548, 163510

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 1995-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
547 N.W.2d 646 (1995)
450 Mich. 955
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Danny Joe MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 102548, COA No. 163510.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
December 27, 1995.
ORDER
On order of the Court, the delayed application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. However, we ORDER that the opinion of the Court of Appeals shall have no precedential force or effect. Reported below: 208 Mich.App. 495, 528 N.W.2d 819 (1995). It was unnecessary for the Court of Appeals to reach the merits of the defense challenge to the absence of counsel at the on-the-scene corporeal identification of the defendant by the armed robbery complainant because the issue was not preserved for appellate review.
LEVIN, J., states as follows:
I join in the denial of leave to appeal, but dissent from the statement that the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Mapes v. AAA Insurance Co., 208 Mich.App. 5, 527 N.W.2d 22 (1994), "shall have no precedential force or effect."
*647 I repeat what I said in separate statements in Bernthal v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 444 Mich. 1216, 514 N.W.2d 465 (1994), and Ginther v. Ovid-Elsie Area Schools, 444 Mich. 1218, 514 N.W.2d 763 (1994):[1]
MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., concurs in the dissenting statement of LEVIN, J.
BOYLE, J., would grant leave to appeal.
[1]  See also People v. Barajas, 444 Mich. 556, 513 N.W.2d 772 (1994).