People v. Sacorafas

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. However, I do not agree with all of the reasons cited therein.

I believe that defendant was entitled to a rehearing on his motion to suppress. It strikes me as incongruous to hold that Judge Crockett had jurisdiction to hear the motion, while at the same time implying that any disposition he made would have been meaningless because defendant was not enti*375tied to the second hearing. The rule of People v Lenic, 255 Mich 29; 237 NW 35 (1931), does not appear to me to deny a defendant a rehearing on a trial court motion.

It is evident from the…