(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent with regard to the majority’s application of People v Schultz, 435 Mich 517; 460 NW2d 505 (1990). Schultz is not controlling because only three members of the Court agreed on the basis for the ruling. An opinion is not binding precedent unless a majority agree on the rationale. Van Dyke v League General Ins Co, 184 Mich App 271; 457 NW2d 141 (1990); DeMaria v Auto Club Ins Ass’n (On Remand), 165 Mich App 251; 418 NW2d 398 (1987); Negri v Slotkin, 397 Mich 105, 109; 244 NW2d 98 (1976); People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155, 170; 205 NW2d 461 (1973).
As I have previously agreed with the reasoning of the dissenters in Schultz, and as I am not required to rule otherwise because Schultz is not binding, I would affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence.
However, since Schultz was decided, our Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, has repeatedly vacated rulings of this Court and reinstated sentences imposed by trial courts in those cases where the trial courts had retroactively applied the amended version of §7401 in sentencing defendants. In so ordering, the Supreme Court expressly relied on Schultz. See, for example, In re People v Cunningham, 437 Mich 867 (1990). Therefore, in the interests of fairness and judicial economy, I reluctantly concur in the result reached by the majority.