Case Name: PEOPLE v. STRINGER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-12-05
Citations: 87 Mich. App. 481
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-5128
Parties: PEOPLE v STRINGER
Judges: Before: J. H. Gillis, P.J., and V. J. Brennan and Bashara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 87
Pages: 481–484

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v STRINGER
Docket No. 77-5128.
Submitted August 31, 1978, at Detroit.
Decided December 5, 1978.
Horace Stringer was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of assault with intent to commit murder and possession of a firearm while in the commission of a felony, Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Michael J. Connor, J. The defendant appeals and claims double jeopardy. Held:
The defendant’s conviction on the felony-firearm count is set aside because the double conviction would violate his guarantee against double jeopardy; but his sentence for the assault conviction, as augmented by the felony-firearm statute, is upheld because the statute was intended as one for the augmentation of the penalty.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
J. H. Gillis, P.J., dissented. He would hold that the two convictions violated the defendant’s guarantee against double jeopardy and he would reverse the conviction on the felony-firearm count and set aside that portion of the defendant’s sentence because the punishment prescribed by the statute cannot be imposed for conviction of the underlying felony.
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Felony-Firearm — Underlying Felony — Statutes.
It is a violation of a defendant’s constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy to convict him of an underlying felony and, out of the same incident, convict him of a violation of the felony-firearm statute where the possession of the firearm is a necessary prerequisite to the conviction of the underlying felony; however, since the felony-firearm statute is intended to be a sentence augmenting statute, the defendant’s sentence for the underlying felony conviction may be augmented by the penalty prescribed by the felony-firearm statute even though the felony-firearm conviction must be vacated because of double jeopardy considerations (MCL 750.227[b]; MSA 28.424[2]).
References for Points in Headnotes
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 9, 182-193, 546, 584, 585.
Court’s right, in imposing sentence, to hear evidence of, or to consider, other offenses committed by defendant. 96 ALR2d 768.
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide §§ 2, 549 et seq.
Dissent by J. H. Gillis, P. J.
2. Criminal Law — Assault with Intent to Commit Murder — Felony-Firearm — Possession of Firearm.
A defendant may not be convicted of and doubly punished for assault with intent to commit murder and violation of the felony-ñrearm statute arising out of the assault where the possession of the ñrearm was a necessary prerequisite to the conviction of the assault.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward R. Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Robert M. Morgan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Robert E. McCall, for defendant on appeal.
Before: J. H. Gillis, P.J., and V. J. Brennan and Bashara, JJ.

Opinion:
Bashara, J.
The majority accepts the facts as set forth in our brother's dissent. In view of People v McDowell, 85 Mich App 697; 272 NW2d 576 (1978), and People v Blount, 87 Mich App 501; 275 NW2d 21 (1978), we set aside defendant's felony-firearm conviction, but uphold the sentence as an augmentation of the penalty in the underlying felony.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.