Court Opinion

ID: 9721913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:12:32.948113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:29.198191
License: Public Domain

E. A. Quinnell, J.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2), and unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years imprisonment.
Defendant’s double jeopardy claim must be rejected in light of the Michigan Supreme Court holding in Wayne County Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374; 280 NW2d 793 (1979), app dis sub nom Brintley v Michigan, 444 US 948; 100 S Ct 418; 62 L Ed 2d 317 (1979). In Wayne County Prosecutor, supra, 397-398, the Court held that the double jeopardy test of Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299; 52 S Ct 180; 76 L Ed *611306 (1932), turned on an analysis of what the prosecution was legally required to prove to obtain a conviction, and not what the prosecution established in a particular case. Here, the prosecution was legally required to prove that a sexual penetration occurred under circumstances involving the commission of some other felony. The prosecution was not legally required to prove unarmed robbery. Thus, under the Michigan Supreme Court’s interpretation of Blockburger, no double jeopardy violation exists.
Furthermore, there is no constitutional infirmity with the convictions for unarmed robbery and first-degree criminal sexual conduct under the standard set out in People v Martin, 398 Mich 303; 247 NW2d 303 (1976). In Wayne County Prosecutor, supra, 399-402, the Court held that where there is a clear expression of legislative intent to authorize multiple convictions and punishments arising out of a common act, there is no double jeopardy problem. In the instant case, there is a clear legislative intent to authorize multiple convictions and punishments. See People v Robideau, 94 Mich App 663; 289 NW2d 846 (1980). We are thus bound by Wayne County Prosecutor, supra, to uphold both of defendant’s convictions.
Defendant’s other claims of error lack any merit and do not require discussion.
Affirmed.
Bashara, P.J., concurred.