From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fish

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 20, 1996
560 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

Docket No. 194868.

Submitted May 17, 1996, at Lansing.

Decided December 20, 1996, at 9:35 A.M.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Richard Thompson, Prosecuting Attorney, Joyce F. Todd, Chief, Appellate Division, and Anica Letica, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Raymond Prokop, P.C. (by Stephen M. Ryan), for the defendant.

Amici Curiae:

Margaret Chiara, John D. O'Hair, and Timothy A. Baughman, for Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan.

Robert W. Larin, for Robert W. Larin.

Before: MACKENZIE, P.J., and GRIBBS and WHITE, JJ.


ON SECOND REMAND


This case has been remanded to this Court a second time, with instructions to reconsider our prior opinion in light of People v Weatherholt, 214 Mich. App. 507; 543 N.W.2d 34 (1995). 451 Mich. 891 (1996). The facts and issues are set out in our previous decision, People v Fish (On Remand), 207 Mich. App. 486; 525 N.W.2d 467 (1994).

The issues in this case have been resolved by this Court's opinion in Weatherholt, supra, where a special conflict panel held that conviction of the felony, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor, third offense, is a mere sentence enhancement of the underlying OUIL misdemeanor conviction. MCL 257.625(6)(d); MSA 9.2325(6)(d). See now subsection 7 of § 625. This panel is bound by that decision.

The circuit court order reinstating the OUIL-3 charge is affirmed. This matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion and Weatherholt, supra. We do not retain jurisdiction.


Summaries of

People v. Fish

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 20, 1996
560 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Fish

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v FISH (ON SECOND REMAND)

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 20, 1996

Citations

560 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)
560 N.W.2d 76

Citing Cases

People v. Callon

Similarly, defendant's argument that his impaired-driving conviction is an element of OUIL/UBAL, third…