People v. Cline

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Cline

475 N.W.2d 362, 190 Mich. App. 1

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 18, 1991

DocketDocket 128945

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 475 N.W.2d 362 (People v. Cline) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cline, 475 N.W.2d 362, 190 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty of two counts of delivery of less than fifty grams of cocaine. MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401X2) (a)(iv). Defendant was sentenced for the convictions to two consecutive terms of five to twenty years in prison. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences rather than concurrent sentences. MCL 333.7401(3); MSA 14.15(7401X3) provides that any term of imprisonment imposed under subsection 2(a) shall be imposed to run consecutively with any term of imprisonment imposed for the commission of "another felony.” Defendant argues that that provision is inapplicable to the case at bar because the violations, which were committed on two consecutive days, were charged in the same information and were pled to simultaneously at a single plea proceeding. We disagree. The first delivery constituted a felony and the second delivery constituted another felony. Consequently, the trial court was authorized to impose consecutive sentences under the statute.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty of two counts of delivery of less than fifty grams of cocaine. MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401X2) (a)(iv). Defendant was sentenced for the convictions to two consecutive terms of five to twenty years in prison. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences rather than concurrent sentences. MCL 333.7401(3); MSA 14.15(7401X3) provides that any term of imprisonment imposed under subsection 2(a) shall be imposed to run consecutively with any term of imprisonment imposed for the commission of "another felony.” Defendant argues that that provision is inapplicable to the case at bar because the violations, which were committed on two consecutive days, were charged in the same information and were pled to simultaneously at a single plea proceeding. We disagree. The first delivery constituted a felony and the second delivery constituted another felony. Consequently, the trial court was authorized to impose consecutive sentences under the statute.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 N.W.2d 362, 190 Mich. App. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cline-michctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack