83 Mich. App. 390 - People v. Harper

*402Beasley, P. J.

¶1(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur with that part of the opinion which remands for supplementation of the record regarding the trial judge’s reasons for accepting the plea of nolo contendere.

¶2I dissent from that part of the opinion which dismisses two counts of criminal sexual conduct, first degree, on the strength of People v Willie Johnson.1

¶31 would believe People v Nelson2is the more compelling articulation of the Legislature’s intentions in enacting the new criminal sexual conduct statute in 1975. I find it inconceivable that at a time when the increase in violent crime is a problem of major proportion this Court would base its interpretation of this statute on application of a rule of lenity.3

¶4Like the majority, I would find People v Gonzales4 apropos. Therefore, I would remand for supplementation of the record in accordance with this opinion.

¶575 Mich App 221; 255 NW2d 207 (1977).

¶679 Mich App 303; 261 NW2d 299 (1977).

¶7See, People v Willie Johnson, supra, at 225-226, where that panel said:

"It was on these and similar considerations that the 'rule of lenity’, as defined and applied in People v Bennett, 71 Mich App 246; 247 NW2d 368 (1976), was formulated to resolve ambiguities in a single statutory scheme in favor of permitting only one rather than two criminal convictions absent clear legislative guidance to the contrary.” (Footnote omitted.)

¶870 Mich App 319; 245 NW2d 734 (1976).

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.

¶9(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I agree with the result reached by Judge Kelly together with his analysis of the issues except the commentary relating to what is meant by "any term of years” and as to this I reserve my judgment. In my opinion, any discus*403sion thereof is unnecessary to the disposition of the instant appeal and amounts to no more than dictum. I prefer to defer my views on such issue to a more appropriate time when its resolution would be authoritative.