Summary
In People v. Spann, 469 Mich. 904, 668 N.W.2d 904 (2003), this Court considered MCL 333.7401(3), the consecutive-sentencing provision of the controlled substances act (CSA), MCL 333.7401 et seq.
Summary of this case from Sanford v. StateOpinion
No. 121630.
September 26, 2003.
Summary Disposition.
No. 121630. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed because MCL 333.7401(3) requires defendant's sentence to be consecutive. MCR 7.302(G)(1). This order does not constitute approval of the Court of Appeals determination that the word "imprisonment" in MCL 333.7401(3) is ambiguous. Undefined statutory terms should be given their plain and ordinary meanings, for which dictionaries may be consulted. Koontz v. Ameritech Services, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 312 (2002). Further, the Legislature often has used the term "imprisonment" to mean confinement in jail as well as confinement in prison. See MCL 769.28, MCL 35.403, MCL 66.8, and MCL 430.55. Thus, while declaring the term ambiguous, even the analysis used by the Court of Appeals in this case demonstrated that the statute is not ambiguous. Reported below: 250 Mich App 527.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would deny leave to appeal.