Case Name: PEOPLE v. BARAJAS
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1994-02-11
Citations: 444 Mich. 556
Docket Number: Docket No. 96159
Parties: PEOPLE v BARAJAS
Judges: Cavanagh, C.J., and Brickley, Boyle, Riley, Griffin, and Mallett, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 444
Pages: 556–559

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v BARAJAS
Docket No. 96159.
Decided February 11, 1994.
On application by the people for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Arturo C. Barajas was convicted by a jury in the Calhoun Circuit Court, James C. Kingsley, J., of conspiracy to possess 650 or more grams of a mixture containing cocaine. The Court of Appeals, D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Mackenzie and Sawyer, JJ., reversed in an opinion per curiam, holding that there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy and that the separately packaged cocaine and baking soda, delivered to the defendant by the seller to create the illusion of a larger amount of cocaine, did not constitute a mixture (Docket No. 124795). The prosecutor seeks leave to appeal.
In a memorandum opinion, signed by Chief Justice Cavanagh, and Justices Brickley, Boyle, Riley, Griffin, and Mallett, the Supreme Court held:
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed; however, the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals is limited strictly to the facts of the case.
Affirmed.
Justice Levin, dissenting, stated that the precedential force or effect of an opinion of the Court of Appeals should not be set aside absent a determination by this Court or the United States Supreme Court that the Court of Appeals erred. Such a decision should not be lightly made, and clearly should not be made without plenary consideration, and the resulting notice to other persons who might seek to file a brief as amicus curiae, and who might be favorably or adversely affected by an affir-mance or reversal of the decision.
The opinion of the majority does not indicate how the Court of Appeals might have erred in its analysis. Denial of the precedential force or effect of an opinion of the Court of Appeals avoids compliance with the constitutional imperative that decisions of the Supreme Court are to be in writing and are to contain a concise statement of the facts and reasons for each decision and reasons for each denial of leave to appeal.
198 Mich App 551; 499 NW2d 396 (1993) affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Jon Sahli, Prosecuting Attorney, and Nancy Mullett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Gemrich, Moser, Bowser, Fette & Lohrmann (by Scott Graham) for the defendant.

Opinion:
Memorandum Opinion. The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess 650 or more grams of a mixture containing cocaine. MCL 750.157a, 333.7403(2)(a)(i); MSA 28.354(1), 14.15(7403)(2)(a)(i). He was then sentenced to a life term of imprisonment.
The defendant attempted to purchase a large amount of cocaine, but the seller evidently intended to cheat him. Thus, the seller delivered a much smaller amount of cocaine in a package that was physically arranged to create the illusion of a larger amount. One feature of the package was that the small amount of cocaine was kept separate from a much larger quantity of baking soda.
The Court of Appeals reversed the defendant's conviction because there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy (it was not proven that the seller ever intended to provide the promised amount), and because the separately packaged cocaine and baking soda did not constitute a "mixture." 198 Mich App 551, 558; 499 NW2d 396 (1993). The prosecutor appeals.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. MCR 7.302(F)(1). However, we emphasize that the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals is limited strictly to the facts of this case._
Cavanagh, C.J., and Brickley, Boyle, Riley, Griffin, and Mallett, JJ., concurred.
The statute imposes liability for possessing "an amount of 650 grams or more of any mixture containing that controlled substance . . . ." MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(i); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(a)(i).
We also grant the defendant's motion for immediate consideration.