Court Opinion

ID: 9850040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:51:19.278102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:30.694666
License: Public Domain

FITZGERALD, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that possession of marijuana, second offense, constitutes a felony within the meaning of the consecutive sentencing provision of the Fublic Health Code, MCL 333.7401(3).
The Legislature has designated possession of marijuana as a misdemeanor. MCL 333.7403(2)(d). Defen*495dant’s sentence for possession of marijuana was subject to enhancement pursuant to MCL 333.7413(2) because it was a second conviction, and he was sentenced to a term of two years. Michigan’s habitual-offender statutes are merely sentence-enhancement mechanisms rather than substantive crimes. People v Zinn, 217 Mich App 340, 345; 551 NW2d 704 (1996); People v Anderson, 210 Mich App 295, 297-298; 532 NW2d 918 (1995). Sentence enhancement does not convert the misdemeanor of possession of marijuana to a felony. Thus, a second conviction for possession of marijuana is not “another felony” for purposes of the consecutive-sentencing provision set out in MCL 333.7401(3). I would conclude that the trial court erred by ordering the enhanced sentence imposed for the marijuana conviction to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for the cocaine conviction.