Court Opinion

ID: 9583443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:38:41.291607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:01.333435
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Wahls, J.,
(concurring). We agree with Judge Sawyer’s opinion except for section I.
We concur in the result reached, but are of the opinion that the penalty for delivery is subject to the same ratiocination as the Supreme Court majority applied to possession in the case of People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15; 485 NW2d 866 (1992). We would therefore hold unconstitutional the no-parole portion of the penalty of MCL 33.7401(2)(a)(i); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(i) precisely as the Supreme Court did in Bullock, supra. However, because the constitutional issue is not outcome determinative, we concur in the result reached by Judge Sawyer.