Court Opinion

ID: 9695702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:27:51.121504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:15.841451
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting in part). I concur in the majority’s affirmance of both defendants’ convictions but disagree with its holding that defendant Thomas’ sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Since defendant Thomas’ conviction, the Legislature has amended the statute to provide for a lesser ten-year minimum sentence and to give the *544sentencing court discretion to depart from the minimum sentence requirement. MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(ii), 333.7401(4); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(ii), 14.15(7401)(4). This legislative revision indicates that the punishment defendant Thomas received was not proportionate to his crime, and so constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. People v Schultz, 172 Mich App 674, 687; 432 NW2d 742 (1988). I would remand defendant Thomas’ case for resentencing under the new statute.