Court Opinion

ID: 9503179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:37:09.197012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:18.798419
License: Public Domain

CORRIGAN, J.
(concurring). I join the majority opinion because I agree that third-degree home invasion under MCL 750.110a(4)(a) is a necessarily included lesser offense of the charged offense of first-degree home invasion. As the majority opinion explains, all the elements required for defendant’s conviction of third-degree home invasion are subsumed in the elements of first-degree home invasion.
I write separately only to express continued adherence to my dissenting opinion in People v Nyx, 479 Mich 112, 154-179; 734 NW2d 548 (2007). That is, when the Legislature itself has formally divided an offense into degrees, MCL 768.32(1) permits a fact-finder to convict a defendant of a legislatively denominated inferior degree of the charged offense if a rational view of the evidence supports the conviction. Resort to the Cornell1 rule of construction for determining whether an offense is inferior is simply unnecessary in this situation.
Nonetheless, because the majority here correctly concludes that the elements of third-degree home invasion under MCL 750.110a(4)(a) are subsumed in the charged offense of first-degree home invasion, thereby requiring reinstatement of defendant’s convictions and sentences, I concur in the majority’s decision.

 People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335; 646 NW2d 127 (2002).