¶1(concurring in the result only). I concur with the result reached by the majority to overrule People v Smith, 438 Mich 715; 475 NW2d 333 (1991), and its progeny because these cases are inconsistent with the plain language of MCL 780.131, the 180-day-rule statute. The statute contains no exception for charges subject to consecutive sentencing. Moreover, while I agree with the majority that, under the facts of this case, there was not a violation of the 180-day-rule statute or defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, if defendant is ultimately convicted, I urge the *266trial court to consider the delay in bringing defendant to trial when imposing defendant’s sentence. If convicted, the delay in prosecuting defendant will in fact delay the start of defendant’s minimum sentence.
475 Mich. 245
716 N.W.2d 208
People v. Williams
Decided June 14, 2006
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 2006-06-14
Applies MI 780 § 780.131
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2006-06-14
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Brown (2012), 47 So. 3d 1048 - State Ex Rel. Dw (2010)
29 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →