Court Opinion

ID: 9742573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:16:23.236239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:33.893430
License: Public Domain

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the reasoning and remand written by Justice Levin except on the "Tanner issue”. In writing the opinion for the Court in People v Tanner, 387 Mich 683; 199 *447NW2d 202 (1972), I concluded at page 690 as follows:
"Based upon the principles analyzed and discussed in People v Hampton, 384 Mich 669 [187 NW2d 404] (1971), we hold that the decision herein is prospectively limited to those cases in which'sentence is to be or has been imposed after date of filing of this opinion and to those cases which on date of filing of this opinion are pending on appeal and which have properly raised and preserved the issue for appeal. Sentences imposed prior to date of this decision and not pending on appeal upon properly preserved specific issue shall not be affected by the rule herein adopted.”
This opinion was signed by Justices Adams, T. G. Kavanagh, Swainson and Williams.
It was represented to us by then members of the Court that the limitation as to the effect of the opinion would not be upheld when subsequent cases were brought to our attention. I vote to uphold it.
The Tanner opinion was rendered July 26, 1972. In the instant case claim of appeal to the Court of Appeals was timely filed on June 29, 1971. However, the Tanner issue was not raised at the trial of this case, nor was a brief filed with the Court of Appeals properly raising this issue prior to July 26, 1972. Any brief, supplemental brief, or amended brief, filed with the Court of Appeals after July 26, 1972 which for the first time raises the Tanner issue does not entitle the case upon which it is filed to the benefit of the Tanner holding unless sentencing was imposed after July 26, 1972. Cases upon which such briefs are filed are not cases then "pending on appeal upon properly preserved speciñc issue”. Ginther is such a case.
In Ginther, the Court of Appeals rendered its *448decision on February 29,1972. Delayed application for leave to appeal to this Court was made April 28, 1972, leave being granted July 6, 1972. Nowhere in the entire record, including the briefs filed with this Court, is the Tanner issue raised. It is hardly necessary to further point out that this issue was not preserved for appellate review prior to July 26, 1972. Ginther is not entitled to the Tanner holding.
I dissent from that portion of the opinion remanding this case for resentencing under the Tanner holding.
Williams and M. S. Coleman, JJ., concurred with T. M. Kavanagh, C. J.