Court Opinion

ID: 9741948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:04:38.823127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.463253
License: Public Domain

D. C. Riley, J.
(concurring). I concur but write *238separately merely to emphasize that application of MCLA 335.348; MSA 18.1070(48) in the context of the instant facts does not offend due process. I do not read my Brother Allen’s opinion as holding that §48 permits a doubling of punishment in every case. Rather, I would leave for another day the question whether a double penalty is constitutionally permissible where the prior offense is relatively minor and the subsequent offense significantly more grave.1 I would also forego deciding whether a prior offense may be so remote in time that its use under § 48 to enhance punishment is constitutionally proscribed.

 Since in the present case defendant’s prior drug convictions involved not only marihuana but also cocaine and amphetamines, see People v McFadden, 31 Mich App 512, 514; 188 NW2d 141 (1971), our opinion today does not address the first issue raised in this concurrence.