People v. Morin

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Wright

    432 Mich. 84 (Mich. 1989)   Cited 20 times

    Since the 1978 amendment of the habitual offender act, the Court of Appeals has, with one exception, uniformly held that habitual offenders must receive indeterminate sentences with a minimum term of no more than two-thirds of the maximum. People v Stevens, 138 Mich. App. 438; 360 N.W.2d 216 (1984); People v Roby, 145 Mich. App. 138; 377 N.W.2d 366 (1985), lv den 424 Mich. 887 (1986); People v Morin, 146 Mich. App. 629; 381 N.W.2d 416 (1985); contra People v Freeney, 166 Mich. App. 128; 419 N.W.2d 754 (1988). See also People v Langham, 101 Mich. App. 391; 300 N.W.2d 572 (1980), lv den 410 Mich. 892 (1981) (a determinate or "flat" sentence held improper under the habitual offender act).

  2. People v. Vandermel

    401 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 6 times
    In People v VanderMel, 156 Mich. App. 231; 401 N.W.2d 285 (1986), this Court held that the Legislature has not prohibited concurrent application of MCL 750.520f; MSA 28.788(6) and the habitual offender statutes.

    The sentences of those convicted as habitual offenders are subject to the rule of indeterminate sentencing set forth in People v. Tanner, 387 Mich. 683; 199 N.W.2d 202 (1972). People v. Stevens, 138 Mich. App. 438, 443; 360 N.W.2d 216 (1984); People v. Morin, 146 Mich. App. 629; 381 N.W.2d 416 (1985). The habitual offender sentence was subject to the five-year minimum mandated by MCL 750.520f; MSA 28.788(6).