People v. Puertas, Docket Nos. 59954
| Decision Date | 06 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 59954,60022 and 60023 |
| Citation | 122 Mich.App. 626,332 N.W.2d 399 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Edmund PUERTAS, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert E. HAUPT, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Earl HAUPT, Defendant-Appellant. 122 Mich.App. 626, 332 N.W.2d 399 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[122 MICHAPP 628] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., L. Brooks Patterson, Pros. Atty., Robert C. Williams, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., and Margaret G. Horenstein, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Kurzman & Phelan by Stanley W. Kurzman, Bloomfield Hills, for Joseph E. Puertas.
Jeffrey S. Foran, Bloomfield Hills, for Robert E. Haupt.
Sterling, Schilling & Thorburn by Ronald F. Schilling, Pontiac, for John E. Haupt.
Before DANHOF, C.J., and CAVANAGH and HOLBROOK, JJ.
Defendants pled guilty to charges of delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine, M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401(2)(a)(ii); M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(ii), and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, M.C.L. Sec. 750.157a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.354(1). Defendants conditioned their pleas upon the preservation of their appellate rights with respect to certain legal and constitutional issues. Defendants appeal by right.
Since the prosecutor objected to the entry of the [122 MICHAPP 629] conditional pleas, the defendants first argue that their qualified guilty pleas were valid and entitle them to this Court's consideration of the legal and constitutional issues raised in their appeal. There is currently a split in this Court regarding the validity of conditional pleas; the majority of the panels which have considered the issue have upheld such pleas. People v. Thomas, 115 Mich.App. 586, 321 N.W.2d 742 (1982); People v. Hubbard, 115 Mich.App. 73, 320 N.W.2d 294 (1982); People v. McIntosh, 110 Mich.App. 139, 312 N.W.2d 415 (1981); People v. Smith, 85 Mich.App. 32, 270 N.W.2d 697 (1978). Contra, People v. Reid, 113 Mich.App. 262, 317 N.W.2d 589 (1982). We believe that the interests of judicial economy are best served by our recognizing the validity of a conditional guilty plea and deciding the issues raised on appeal.
Defendants next argue that an essential element of the offense of delivery of cocaine is proof that the substance delivered was not a synthetic product and that, absent such proof, they could not be convicted of delivering a schedule 2 controlled substance under M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401; M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401) and M.C.L. Sec. 333.7214; M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7214). Defendants' argument is frivolous. The statute listing controlled substances in schedule 2 clearly includes substances produced "independently by means of chemical synthesis". M.C.L. Sec. 333.7214(a); M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7214)(a).
Defendants also argue that an essential element of the offense of delivery of a controlled substance in an amount of 225 grams or more but less than 650 grams is a showing that at least each of 225 grams of the substance seized contained some of the illegal drug. This Court has already decided this issue against the defendants. In People v. Prediger, 110 Mich.App. 757, 760, 313 N.W.2d 103 [122 MICHAPP 630] (1981), we held that the weight classifications found in M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401(2)(a); M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401)(2)(a) "refer to the aggregate weight of a mixture containing a controlled substance and not solely to the weight of a pure controlled substance". Furthermore, this Court upheld these statutory weight classifications against an equal protection challenge in People v. Lemble, 103 Mich.App. 220, 222, 303 N.W.2d 191 (1981), wherein we held that punishing defendants more severely for possessing greater amounts of "any mixture" containing a controlled substance was reasonable as the greater the quantity of mixture, whatever the degree of purity, the greater the potential for distribution and harm to society. See also People v. Campbell, 115 Mich.App. 369, 320 N.W.2d 381 (1982).
Defendants next argue that the state's regulation of cocaine unconstitutionally interferes with a citizen's right to possess and use private property. This argument is without merit. People v. Stout, 116 Mich.App. 726, 323 N.W.2d 532 (1982). The classification of cocaine as a controlled substance, because of its high potential for abuse, is clearly within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Reid
...have been offered and accepted heretofore, resulting in convictions which have been affirmed on appeal. See, e.g., People v. Puertas, 122 Mich.App. 626, 332 N.W.2d 399 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1056 (1983), People v. Whittie, 121 Mich.App. 805, 329 N.W.2d 497 (1982), People v. Thomas, 115 ......
-
United States v. Rivera-Ruperto
...§ 333.7403(2)(a)(i). But, of course, such a mixture could contain a much smaller amount of the actual drug. Id.; People v. Puertas, 122 Mich.App. 626, 332 N.W.2d 399, 400 (1983). And thus the least of the conduct criminalized there could not have caused the same harm that the concurrence at......
-
People v. Harding
...208 (1984); People v. Harman, 124 Mich.App. 93, 98, 333 N.W.2d 591 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1100.45 (1983); People v. Puertas, 122 Mich.App. 626, 630, 332 N.W.2d 399 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1056 (1983); People v. Kaigler, 116 Mich.App 567, 572-573, 323 N.W.2d 486 (1982); People v. Camp......
-
People v. Matthews
...based on due process and equal protection. People v. Ward, 133 Mich.App. 344, 357, 351 N.W.2d 208 (1984); People v. Puertas, 122 Mich.App. 626, 630, 332 N.W.2d 399 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1056 (1983); and People v. Kaigler, supra, rejected challenges that the penalty provisions constitut......