People v. Manning, Docket Nos. 83335
| Decision Date | 30 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | 83702,Docket Nos. 83335 |
| Citation | 163 Mich.App. 641,415 N.W.2d 1 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven A. MANNING, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin Paul NORTHOUSE, Defendant-Appellant. 163 Mich.App. 641, 415 N.W.2d 1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[163 MICHAPP 642] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., William A. Forsyth, Pros. Atty., and Carol Kay Bucher, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the people.
George S. Buth and James R. Rinck, Grand Rapids, for defendants on appeal.
Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and McDONALD and GRAVES, * JJ.
Following a jury trial defendants were convicted of two counts of both conspiracy to deliver cocaine, M.C.L. Sec. 750.157a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.354(1), and delivery of less than fifty grams of cocaine, M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401(1) and (2)(a)(iv); M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401)(1) and (2)(a)(iv). Additionally, defendant Northouse was convicted of felony offender third offense, M.C.L. Sec. 769.11; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1083, [163 MICHAPP 643] and defendant Manning of felony offender fourth offense, M.C.L. Sec. 769.12; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1084. Defendants were each sentenced to seven to twenty years imprisonment. Both defendants appeal as of right.
The conspiracy to deliver and delivery charges arose out of two incidents occurring on May 9, 1984. On that date at approximately 1:30 p.m., defendants contacted and delivered one quarter of an ounce of cocaine to undercover police officer Robert Goethal. Officer Goethal gave Manning $600 for the delivery. Goethal also gave defendants a small portion of the cocaine for "doing the deal." At the time of this delivery Goethal inquired about obtaining another one quarter of an ounce. Manning phoned Goethal later that evening at approximately 6:00 p.m. and asked if he was ready for the other "quarter." Defendants arrived a short time later and delivered another one quarter of an ounce of cocaine. Goethal again paid $600 and gave defendants a small portion of the cocaine for setting up the deal. Although the record is unclear, it appears that prior to the afternoon delivery Goethal had originally requested one half of an ounce of cocaine.
On appeal defendants contend that their convictions arising out of the evening delivery violate the principals of double jeopardy because the evening delivery was a continuing transaction and thus the same transaction as the afternoon delivery. People v. Robideau, 419 Mich. 458, 355 N.W.2d 592 (1984). We disagree.
Defendants' convictions do not constitute multiple punishments for the same offense. The afternoon and evening deliveries constituted two separate crimes. There were two separate bargained-for deliveries. Defendants were paid $600 after each delivery in addition to a small amount of cocaine for setting up each deal. Moreover, there is [163 MICHAPP 644] no indication that the evening deal was set at the time of the afternoon delivery. Goethal and defendants briefly discussed the possibility of obtaining another "quarter," but no time or place for the delivery was discussed.
Next, defendant Manning claims that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the supplemental information filed against him. We disagree.
On August 23, 1984, ten days after Manning's preliminary exam, the prosecution filed a supplemental felony information charging Manning with being a fourth-time felony offender. On October 23, 1984, an amended supplemental information was filed. A hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss the information indicated that the original supplemental information contained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Miller
...same day. We agree and, therefore, reverse his conviction for delivery of less than fifty grams of cocaine. In People v. Manning, 163 Mich.App. 641, 643-644, 415 N.W.2d 1 (1987), a panel of this Court, in addressing a double jeopardy issue, looked to whether the deliveries were separately b......
-
People v. Hornsby
...otherwise affect the level of defendant's potential sentence enhancement. This case is thus distinguishable from People v. Manning, 163 Mich.App. 641, 415 N.W.2d 1 (1987), where the Court upheld an amendment of a supplemental information outside the fourteen-day rule set forth in [People v.......
-
People v. Siterlet
...Id., quoting Shelton, 412 Mich. at 569, 315 N.W.2d 537. Significantly, the Ellis Court distinguished its case from People v. Manning, 163 Mich.App. 641, 415 N.W.2d 1 (1987), “where the Court upheld an amendment of a supplemental information outside the [applicable notice period].” Ellis, 22......
-
People v. Ellis, Docket No. 187968
...noncompliance with the provisions of M.C.L. § 769.13; M.S.A. § 28.1085.2 This case is thus distinguishable from People v. Manning, 163 Mich.App. 641, 415 N.W.2d 1 (1987), where the Court upheld an amendment of a supplemental information outside the fourteen-day rule set forth in Shelton, su......