Court Opinion

ID: 9730732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:22:03.549008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:08.896536
License: Public Domain

Bashara, P.J.
(concurring). I concur with the result reached by Judge Freeman. My separate concurrence is for the sole purpose of articulating my position as to the retroactivity of People v Fountain, supra.
In People v Taylor, 99 Mich App 613; 299 NW2d 9 (1980), I joined in stating that the Fountain rule should be retroactively applied only where a defen*633dant has not received notice that a supplemental information would be filed and that lack of notice works to the prejudice of the defendant.
In the instant case, the defendant was convicted of the underlying offense on December 1, 1978. The habitual offender information was not filed until December 18, 1978. Obviously, the defendant received no notice that the habitual offender information would be filed until after his conviction of the underlying charge. The additional term of imprisonment clearly worked to the prejudice of the defendant.
In view of the foregoing and the specific facts of this case, I hold that People v Fountain, supra, should be retroactively applied.