Court Opinion

ID: 9686970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:12:36.775503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:23.363741
License: Public Domain

*686T. M. Burns, J.
(dissenting in part). I agree with all of Judge Holbrook, Jr.’s, conclusions except his last. In my view, it is a violation of the Michigan double jeopardy protection1 against double punishment for the "same” offense to allow both the conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424, and going armed with a weapon with intent to use it unlawfully against another, MCL 750.226; MSA 28.423, to stand on the facts of this case.
The protection against double punishment prohibits imposing two sentences, even concurrent sentences, for legally distinct offenses where the fact finder must necessarily find the defendant guilty of one crime in finding guilt on another. If the factual analysis in a particular case shows that one act "blends together” with another, it may only be punished once. People v Stewart (On Rehearing), 400 Mich 540; 256 NW2d 31 (1977), People v Martin, 398 Mich 303; 247 NW2d 303 (1976). See also, People v Anderson, 83 Mich App 744; 269 NW2d 288 (1978).
In the present case, the evidence shows that the weapon carried by defendant was at all times concealed in his pocket. The weapon was removed by the police after they had arrested defendant. Therefore, the same evidence which supported the carrying a firearm with unlawful intent charge also supported the carrying a concealed weapons charge. On the specific facts of this case, it was necessary for the jury to convict of carrying a concealed weapon before it could convict of going armed with unlawful intent.
I would vacate the conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.

 Const 1963, art 1, § 15.