Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Ford

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 1, 2004No. Docket 246136Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWhite, P.J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part.) I respectfully dissent from the majority’s double jeopardy analysis. I concur in the remainder of the opinion.

Application of the Blockburger1 test is not appropriate in a multiple punishment case. People v Robideau, 419 Mich 458, 485-486; 355 NW2d 592 (1984). As the majority states, ante at 448, defendant’s only double jeopardy interest in a multiple punishment case is in not having more punishment imposed than intended by the Legislature. Robideau, supra at 485. The issue is solely one of legislative intent, and Robideau sets forth guidelines for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. People v. RobideauMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  3. People v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  4. People v. ParkerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. People v. WittMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API