Court Opinion

ID: 9707654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:17:40.491398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:36.346095
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(concurring). I of course concur in affirmance for the reason that the unanimous Supreme Court in People v Blythe, 417 Mich 430; 339 NW2d 399 (1983), has now revealed to bench and bar that the tempest generated over the mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery has been a classic exercise in futility. The Court in its wisdom has decided that there is indeed no *441mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery, but the price of that deduction is the necessary correlative that the term "life or any term of years” describes alternative máximums. Quod judices postremum jussit, id jus ratum esto.