In People v. McIntire, 232 Mich. App. 71; 591 N.W.2d 231 (1998), the Court relied on the well-established rule that the Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed, People v. Gould, 225 Mich. App. 79, 83; 570 N.W.2d 140 (1997). The Court concluded that the statute must be applied as written and that it did not prevent the limitation period from being tolled even though the defendant was living openly in South Carolina, it was easy for the authorities to locate him, he did not leave this state to avoid prosecution, and the defendant's absence did not prevent prosecutors from going forward with the case. McIntire, supra at 98. The Court specifically concluded that applying the tolling provision under those facts was what the Legislature intended and rejected the views of a minority of other states that limited application of a tolling provision only where a suspect had absconded or was not amenable to process. McIntire, 232 Mich. App. at 99-100. The Court also pointed out that Michigan's tolling provision applies only in those situations where a suspect is no longer a resident of this state, not just where the suspect is absent from this state. McIntire, 232 Mich. App. at 100, n 16.