Court Opinion

ID: 9504190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:55:50.887173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:54.082629
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring in the result only). I concur with the result reached by the majority to overrule People v Smith, 438 Mich 715; 475 NW2d 333 (1991), and its progeny because these cases are inconsistent with the plain language of MCL 780.131, the 180-day-rule statute. The statute contains no exception for charges subject to consecutive sentencing. Moreover, while I agree with the majority that, under the facts of this case, there was not a violation of the 180-day-rule statute or defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, if defendant is ultimately convicted, I urge the *266trial court to consider the delay in bringing defendant to trial when imposing defendant’s sentence. If convicted, the delay in prosecuting defendant will in fact delay the start of defendant’s minimum sentence.
KELLY, J., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.