Case Name: PEOPLE v. DRAKE JOHNSON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-09-20
Citations: 85 Mich. App. 752
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 77-2754, 77-2755
Parties: PEOPLE v DRAKE JOHNSON
Judges: Before: N. J. Kaufman, P. J., and Beasley and P. R. Mahinske, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 85
Pages: 752–756

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v DRAKE JOHNSON
Docket Nos. 77-2754, 77-2755.
Submitted June 15, 1978, at Detroit
Decided September 20, 1978.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Drake L. Johnson pled guilty to separate counts of armed robbery and the possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences on each conviction in Detroit Recorder’s Court, Joseph E. Maher, J. The question on appeal is whether double jeopardy bars conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of armed robbery. Held:
A conviction of an underlying felony not excepted by the felony-firearm statute and of possession of a firearm under the statute does not involve double jeopardy, double sentence, or double punishment.
Affirmed.
N. J. Kaufman, P. J., dissents. He would hold that double jeopardy is violated where a defendant is convicted twice on separate counts involving identical proofs; the resulting multiple conviction and multiple punishment is unconstitutional.
Opinion of the Court
1. Constitutional Law — Criminal Law — Statutes—Felony-Firearm — Double Jeopardy — Double Punishment.
The felony-firearm statute is a sentence augmenting statute, which was intended by the Legislature to require a specific additional penalty where a firearm is carried or possessed at the time of committing or attempting to commit a felony not excepted by the statute; a conviction under the statute does not involve double jeopardy, double sentence, or double punishment.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 189.
79 Am Jur 2d, Weapons and Firearms § 24.
[2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 189.
[3] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 166.
Dissent by N. J. Kaufman, P. J.
2. Criminal Law — Double Jeopardy — Separate Counts — Identical Proofs — Constitutional Law.
The prohibition against double jeopardy embodied in the United States and Michigan Constitutions is violated where a defendant is convicted twice on separate counts involving identical proofs; the resulting multiple conviction and multiple punishment cannot be constitutionally condoned (US Const, Am V, Const 1963, Art 1, § 15).
3. Constitutional Law — Legislature’s Intent — Double Jeopardy— Criminal Law.
The intent of the Legislature cannot override the mandates of the United States and Michigan Constitutions regarding the prohibition against double jeopardy; the Legislature cannot sanction double convictions and double punishments for the same crime by saying "we intend it so”.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Michael R. Mueller, Director, Prosecutor’s Repeat Offenders Bureau, and Larry L. Roberts, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Sallen, Sallen, Seymour & Sallen, for defendant on appeal.
Before: N. J. Kaufman, P. J., and Beasley and P. R. Mahinske, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We agree with the dissent that the issues raised concerning the plea-taking are without merit.
For the reasons delineated in People v Walter Johnson, we decline to find that the felony-firearm statute is unconstitutional as applied in this case.
Affirmed.
People v Walter Johnson, 85 Mich App 654; 272 NW2d 605 (1978).
MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2).