|
No. 128034
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Charles F. Justian |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Muskegon - Graves, J.) |
|
|
| Sandy Sean Holt, Jr., |
|
Valerie R. Newman |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief (11/3/06) >>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief (2/23/07) >>
Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Background
The statute setting forth the 180-day rule, MCL 780.131, states in part: “Whenever the department of corrections receives notice that there is pending in this state any untried warrant, indictment, information, or complaint setting forth against any inmate of a correctional facility of this state a criminal offense for which a prison sentence might be imposed upon conviction, the inmate shall be brought to trial within 180 days after the department of corrections causes to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the warrant, indictment, information, or complaint is pending written notice of the place of imprisonment of the inmate and a request for final disposition of the warrant, indictment, information, or complaint.” A woman identified Sandy Sean Holt, Jr., as one of two men who forced their way into her home and robbed her. Holt was arrested in Georgia and returned to Michigan, where he was incarcerated by the Department of Corrections on August 25, 2002. The prosecution got actual notice of Holt’s incarceration on August 28, 2002. Trial was initially scheduled for December 10, 2002. A stipulation to adjourn the proceedings was entered on December 3, 2002, apparently to grant Holt’s request for a polygraph examination. Trial was rescheduled for February 27, 2003. The trial was then delayed until May 21, 2003, to accommodate other pending matters in the trial court. On the first day of trial, Holt asked the trial court to dismiss the charge against him, arguing that the 180-day rule had been violated. Holt argued that, even without taking the period from December 10 to February 27 into consideration, the trial did not take place until 188 days after the prosecutor was notified of Holt’s incarceration in Michigan. The prosecutor responded that the trial was rescheduled in good faith, as demonstrated by the fact that it was rescheduled within 89 days. Moreover, the delay from November 25 through February 27 was all attributable to Holt and should not be counted against the state, the prosecutor argued. If that delay was not counted against the state, the trial took place within 172 days, the prosecutor said. Indeed, said the prosecutor, it would make sense to not count any time against the state after the date when Holt requested the initial adjournment in order to take the polygraph. The trial court noted that there was a signed document by defense counsel indicating a desire for an adjournment, and there was also a notice sent out for a second pretrial conference on November 25, 2002. Accordingly, the trial court said, the agreement to adjourn was likely reached on that day, thereby stopping the 180-day period from running. The trial court found that the prosecutor acted in good faith in getting the matter tried within 180 days. At trial, the jury convicted Holt of armed robbery. He was sentenced to a prison term of 30 to 90 years. Holt appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising several issues including his allegation that the 180-day rule was violated. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Holt appeals.
Top of Page
|
