Opinion ID: 1691776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: History of People v. Bewersdorf

Text: In Bewersdorf, this Court, for the first time, interpreted the relationship between the habitual offender act and the Motor Vehicle Code. We held that the habitual offender act [2] is applicable to third and subsequent convictions for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUIL), [3] and therefore, reversed the Court of Appeals. This Court concluded that the Motor Vehicle Code and the habitual offender act were not conflicting; rather, they dovetail[ed] harmoniously. 438 Mich. 55, 59, 475 N.W.2d 231 (1991). Accordingly, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the plain language of the statutes, a defendant who is convicted of OUIL-3d is guilty of a felony. Thus, if a defendant is subsequently convicted of another OUIL-3d offense, he can be charged as an habitual offender. However, this result was not always so clear. Before this Court's decision in Bewersdorf, the Court of Appeals decided People v. Tucker, 177 Mich.App. 174, 441 N.W.2d 59 (1989), in which it held that a person who had two or more OUIL-3d convictions could not be charged as an habitual offender. A different panel of the Court of Appeals chose to follow the Tucker holding in People v. Bewersdorf, 181 Mich.App. 430, 450 N.W.2d 271 (1989). This Court overruled both decisions. [4]