Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Preuss

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 1990No. 83218, (Calendar No. 1)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLevin, J.

I concur in the Court’s decision to adhere to the holding in People v Stoudemire, 429 Mich 262, 278; 414 NW2d 693 (1987), that “multiple convictions arising out of a single incident may count as only a single prior conviction for purposes of the [habitual offender] statute.” I dissent from the Court’s decision not to apply in the instant case the rationale stated in Stoudemire.

i

Preuss’ first two felony convictions could not have triggered the sentence enhancement provi*740sion of MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082.1 When Preuss was first sentenced, he could not have been sentenced as a second felony…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. StoudemireMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
  2. People v. ReedMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API