Felony marijuana conviction under MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii); The Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA); People v Soto; People v Kejbou

The court held that Soto applied here and pursuant to that decision, defendant-Edwards’s felony marijuana conviction under MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii) was not barred by the MRTMA. He was convicted of possession with intent to deliver less than 5 kilograms of marijuana, second or subsequent offense; felony-firearm; and CCW. The court noted that he “was caught with 2.8 pounds (approximately 45 ounces) of marijuana, which far exceeded both ‘the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5’” of the MRTMA, “i.e., 2.5 ounces, as well as double that amount, i.e., 5 ounces. Thus, the amount Edwards possessed with the intent to distribute was not eligible for the punishments of either MCL 333.27965(1) or (2). As for subsection (4), [he] did not just ‘possess’ the marijuana, but ‘possesse[d] it with intent to deliver,’ which is conspicuously missing from that subsection.” As a result, his “criminal act fell outside the four corners of MCL 333.27965. Like the defendant in Soto, Edwards was accused of possessing with intent to deliver an unlawful amount of marijuana; conduct for which the MRTMA does not expressly contain a counterpart provision concerning misdemeanor penalties, notwithstanding the fact the Soto defendant was charged with the higher offense of possessing with intent to deliver 5 to 45 kilograms of marijuana. Thus, pursuant to Soto, because there are no statutes in conflict, the Public Health Code governs, rendering the contested felony prosecution and subsequent conviction under MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii) permissible. The trial court did not err by denying Edwards’s motion for a directed verdict or new trial.” He was not entitled to relief as to “his intent-to-deliver conviction or his felony-firearm conviction, as the marijuana offense properly serves as the predicate felony for the latter under the Public Health Code.” Affirmed.