People v. Quintanilla

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Quintanilla

571 N.W.2d 228, 225 Mich. App. 477

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 1997

DocketDocket No. 184181

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 571 N.W.2d 228 (People v. Quintanilla) 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. Quintanilla, 571 N.W.2d 228, 225 Mich. App. 477 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA 28.277, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2), arising out of a drive-by shooting. Defendant was subsequently convicted of being an habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082, and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of four to six years for each of the assault convictions and to a consecutive two-year term for the felony-firearm conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We remand.

In a supplemental information, defendant was charged as a second offender on the basis of an Ohio conviction of aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a felony in Ohio. Defendant contends that because aggravated assault is only a misdemeanor in Michigan,¹ the Ohio conviction cannot be used for enhancement purposes.

In People v McIntire, 7 Mich App 133, 139; 151 NW2d 187 (1967), this Court noted that at that time the habitual offender act² referred to a prior conviction “ ‘under the law of any other State, government or country, of crimes which if committed within this [479]*479State would be felonious The act requires that the offense be a felony in Michigan under Michigan law, irrespective of whether the offense was or was not a felony in the state or country where originally perpetrated. Hence, the facts of the out-of-state crime, rather than the words or title of the out-of-state statute under which the conviction arose, are determinative.

There is no information in the record concerning the facts of the Ohio conviction. Consequently, this case must be remanded to the trial court to allow the prosecutor to show that the facts of the Ohio conviction would support a felony conviction in Michigan³ or, in the alternative, to allow the prosecutor to proceed under a different prior felony.⁴

Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.⁵ Jurisdiction is not retained.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA 28.277, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2), arising out of a drive-by shooting. Defendant was subsequently convicted of being an habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082, and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of four to six years for each of the assault convictions and to a consecutive two-year term for the felony-firearm conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We remand.

In a supplemental information, defendant was charged as a second offender on the basis of an Ohio conviction of aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a felony in Ohio. Defendant contends that because aggravated assault is only a misdemeanor in Michigan,¹ the Ohio conviction cannot be used for enhancement purposes.

In People v McIntire, 7 Mich App 133, 139; 151 NW2d 187 (1967), this Court noted that at that time the habitual offender act² referred to a prior conviction “ ‘under the law of any other State, government or country, of crimes which if committed within this [479]*479State would be felonious The act requires that the offense be a felony in Michigan under Michigan law, irrespective of whether the offense was or was not a felony in the state or country where originally perpetrated. Hence, the facts of the out-of-state crime, rather than the words or title of the out-of-state statute under which the conviction arose, are determinative.

There is no information in the record concerning the facts of the Ohio conviction. Consequently, this case must be remanded to the trial court to allow the prosecutor to show that the facts of the Ohio conviction would support a felony conviction in Michigan³ or, in the alternative, to allow the prosecutor to proceed under a different prior felony.⁴

Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.⁵ Jurisdiction is not retained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 N.W.2d 228, 225 Mich. App. 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quintanilla-michctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack