Court Opinion

ID: 9666913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:30:09.945172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:33.462542
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant must be resentenced because his sentence shocks the judicial conscience. People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 550; 339 NW2d 440 (1983). Although his codefendant played a greater role in the armed robbery, defendant received a much greater sentence. Under the circumstances of this case, defendant must be resentenced. See People v Haymer, 165 Mich App 734; 419 NW2d 63 (1988). I would not retain jurisdiction.