Court Opinion

ID: 9701487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:20:56.010751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:24.083411
License: Public Domain

Bashara, P.J.
(concurring). I concur with the result reached by Judge Freeman. My separate concurrence is for the sole purpose of articulating my position as to the retroactivity of People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96; 282 NW2d 168 (1979).
In People v Taylor, 99 Mich App 613; 299 NW2d 9 (1980), I joined in stating that the Fountain rule should be retroactively applied only where a defendant has not received notice that a supplemental information would be filed and that lack of notice works to the prejudice of the defendant.
In the instant case, the supplemental information was not filed until the trial on the underlying charge had been concluded and the jurors excused. The defendant had not received notice of the supplemental information until after being convicted of the primary offense. Defendant received a sentence on the habitual offender charge of 15 to 30 years, rather than the sentence of six years, eight months to ten years on the underlying charge. This fact indicates that he may have been prejudiced by not knowing of the supplemental information prior to trial.
In view of the foregoing and the specific facts of this case, I believe that People v Fountain, supra, should be retroactively applied. In all other respects, I concur in the reasoning and result reached by Judge Freeman.