Court Opinion

ID: 9696511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:49:52.458464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:22.939766
License: Public Domain

Beasley, P.J.
(concurring). I concur in the result.
The narrow issue on appeal is whether the facts shown in the transcript of the plea-taking procedure will support a finding of guilty of both offenses. If both the breaking and entering and the larceny in a building rest upon the same theft of money inside the flower shop, current state interpretation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy requires setting aside of the larceny in a building conviction.1
On this record, it is a close question. In breaking and entering cases, the intent to commit larceny often arises as a necessary inference from the breaking and entering. But, in the within case, the factual basis for both pleas was the theft of money inside the flower shop. Consequently, since both pleas seem to rest on the same factual basis, I agree with the result reached by the majority in setting aside the larceny in a building conviction.

 People v Jankowski, 408 Mich 79; 289 NW2d 674 (1980).