People v. Noel, Docket Nos. 77-4987
| Decision Date | 06 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 77-4987,77-5233 |
| Citation | 88 Mich.App. 752,279 N.W.2d 305 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles NOEL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Varga & Ziolkowski by Alfred H. Varga, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, App. Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Robert M. Morgan, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GILLIS, P. J., and V. J. BRENNAN and BASHARA, JJ.
On August 26, 1977, defendant, Charles Noel, pled guilty in Recorder's Court case # 77-05858 to armed robbery, M.C.L. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony (armed robbery), M.C.L. § 750.227b; M.S.A. § 28.424(2). The defendant also pled guilty in Recorder's Court case # 77-05788 to assault with intent to rob being armed, M.C.L. § 750.89; M.S.A. § 28.284, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
In the former proceeding defendant was sentenced to 2 to 15 years on the robbery and 2 years on the felony-firearm charge, said terms to run consecutively. In the latter proceeding defendant was sentenced to 2 to 15 years on the assault, said term to run concurrently with the robbery sentence, and 5 years on the felony-firearm charge, said term to run consecutively with the aforementioned 2-year term. The sentencing court set forth the defendant's net sentence as 9 to 15 years. The defendant appeals by right. GCR 1963, 806.1.
The defendant raises two issues on appeal, neither of which warrants lengthy discussion. The defendant's contention that the element of larceny from the person was not established at the plea proceeding is without merit. The record clearly shows that the defendant took money from the complainant at gunpoint. Furthermore, a review of the record and docket entries indicates no error in sentencing.
This brings us to a problem not raised by the defendant. Generally we do not address issues not raised by the parties on appeal. However, our function is to dispense justice, and we are given the limited power to raise questions on our own. Dearborn v. Bacila, 353 Mich. 99, 118, 90 N.W.2d 863 (1958); Vermeylen v. Knight Investment Corp., 73 Mich.App. 632, 642, 252 N.W.2d 574 (1977).
We have held in People v. Blount, 87 Mich.App. 501, 275 N.W.2d 21 (1978), that the rule against double jeopardy prohibits separate convictions on both felony firearm and the underlying felony. In accordance with that opinion we set aside the two convictions for felony firearm. However the defendant's sentence as an augmentation of the penalty for the underlying felony is upheld.
Reversed in part;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Yost
...(1999),5 which is likely to be repeated on remand, we elect to address this issue sua sponte. See MCR 7.216(A)(7); People v. Noel, 88 Mich.App. 752, 754, 279 N.W.2d 305 (1979) ("Generally we do not address issues not raised by the parties on appeal. However, our function is to dispense just......
-
Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Tri-City Motors and Sports, Inc.
...order to fulfill our function of dispensing justice. Dearborn v. Bacila, 353 Mich. 99, 118, 90 N.W.2d 863 (1958); People v. Noel, 88 Mich.App. 752, 754, 279 N.W.2d 305 (1979). This is especially true where, such as here, the issue is necessary for a proper determination of the case or is on......
-
People v. Thompson
...since the function of this Court is to dispense justice it has limited power to raise questions on its own. People v. Noel, 88 Mich.App. 752, 754, 279 N.W.2d 305 (1979). In Ormsby, supra, a general verdict of guilty was entered upon an indictment charging distinct and separate offenses in s......
-
People v. Jones
...Court will not address such issues. However, in an effort to dispense justice, the Court has limited power to do so. People v. Noel, 88 Mich.App. 752, 279 N.W.2d 305 (1979). The issue is whether the trial court erred in not instructing on involuntary Manslaughter, while not a necessarily in......