Court Opinion

ID: 9701488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:20:56.014338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:24.084312
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I do not believe that *395the facts of this case warrant a remand. This defendant was caught in the act of burglarizing a market in Ann Arbor after a silent burglar alarm brought police to the premises. There is simply no reasonable possibility for any fact finder to vindicate the defendant or believe his testimony. I presume that the police officer did not require a signed statement from the defendant because he had an ironclad case without the defendant’s confession. I cannot see that the failure of the officer to preserve his original notes was anything but inconsequential, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think further that the majority’s position on the retroactivity of People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96; 282 NW2d 168 (1979), is erroneous, and I have opted for prospective application as to the supplemental information requirements imposed by the Michigan Supreme Court in Fountain. See People v Doran, 100 Mich App 795; 300 NW2d 415 (1980). See also People v Stankiewicz, 101 Mich App 476; 300 NW2d 611 (1980).
At the time of his arrest in this case the defendant had been convicted of six prior felonies. According to the people’s brief, the defendant was told at the time of his preliminary examination in district court that he would be charged as an habitual offender regardless of whether he pled guilty or went to trial on this breaking and entering charge. The people also allege that at the pretrial on August 3, 1978, where counsel for the defendant was present, the trial court and counsel for defendant were again informed of the prosecutor’s intention to charge the defendant as an habitual offender. In any event, the defendant was convicted as an habitual offender a year before People v Fountain, supra.
I would affirm in all respects.