Court Opinion

ID: 9692909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:12:00.490424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:59:08.831440
License: Public Domain

W. J. Caprathe, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority opinion, except I do not believe that People v Witt, 140 Mich App 365; 364 NW2d 692 (1985), was wrongly decided. In Witt, the armed robbery and the vault robbery were not established by the same conduct, i.e., there was an attempt to rob an armored car and a separate robbery of the guard’s gun. Factually, there was no double jeopardy, and the decision to affirm both convictions was proper.
However, the majority in Witt, of which I was a part, went further. We concluded that the Legislature intended multiple punishments under both the armed robbery and vault robbery statutes for the same conduct. After applying that conclusion to the facts in the present case, and for the reasons so aptly set forth by the majority in the present case, I have changed my mind. I now believe that the Legislature did not intend to permit punishment for the same conduct under both the vault robbery and the armed and unarmed robbery statutes.