People v. Comer

I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion only because I am *546compelled to do so by People v Harris, 224 Mich App 597; 569 NW2d 525 (1997). In my view, Harris was wrongly decided and should be overruled by our Supreme Court. Further, I believe that the Supreme Court has signaled, albeit in obiter dictum, that the analysis set forth in Harris is deeply flawed. Were it not for Harris, I would vacate the electronic monitoring provision from defendant’s sentence.

Resolution of this case hinges on an interpretation of two closely related court rules. The first, MCR 6.429 sets forth two…