People v. Fulton

Defendant was not subjected to improper double enhancement where his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance was only used once, as a predicate felony, to support his conviction as an armed habitual criminal. Defendant was originally charged as being an armed habitual criminal and the 2 predicate offenses (delivery of a controlled substance and UUWF) were used only once each as element of armed habitual criminal offense.  No harsher sentence was imposed, and severity of offense was never elevated. The armed habitual criminal statute is not unconstitutional where statute is rationally related to public interest.(CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)