PEOPLE OF MI V JOSEPH T ULLMER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 1, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 188443
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 94-037454-FH
JOSEPH T. ULLMER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: D.F. Walsh,* P.J., and R.P. Griffin** and W.P. Cynar,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant tendered a conditional plea of guilty to being a prisoner
in possession of a controlled substance (to wit: dihydrocodeinone), MCL 800.281(4); MSA
28.1621(4), and habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082. He was sentenced
to four to seven-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, to be served consecutive to a sentence he was then
serving. He appeals as of right. We affirm. This case has been decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(A).
The trial court did not err as a matter of law in denying defendant’s motion for dismissal based
on the claim that the instant prosecution violated his double jeopardy rights. An administrative
proceeding which could result in the forfeiture of good time credits combined with a conviction and
sentence in a criminal proceeding in a court of justice is not violative of the Fifth Amendment prohibition
against double jeopardy. People v White, 212 Mich App 298, 304-305; 536 NW2d 876 (1995);
People v Marrow, 210 Mich App 455, 465; 534 NW2d 153 (1995); People v Bachman, 50 Mich
App 682, 683-684; 213 NW2d 800 (1973),
*Former Court of Appeals judges, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
**Former Supreme Court justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
-1
The principle of collateral estoppel does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.
The issue of whether defendant was guilty of possession of a controlled substance was not actually
litigated in the administrative proceeding. People v Gates, 434 Mich 146, 154; 452 NW2d 627
(1990); Porter v Royal Oak, 214 Mich App 478, 485; 542 NW2d 905 (1995); Bullock v Huster,
209 Mich App 551, 556; 532 NW2d 202 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Daniel F. Walsh
/s/ Robert P. Griffin
/s/ Walter P. Cynar
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
