Navigate Up
Sign In

158486 - People v John David Vanderpool

The People of the State of Michigan,

 

Erik Wannik

 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

v

(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)

 

 

(Tuscola – Gerhart, A.)

 

John David Vanderpool,

 

Gaetan Gerville-Reache

 

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Summary

On June 24, 2013, defendant was sentenced to serve two years of probation.  In September 2015, months after the two-year probation period ended, defendant’s probation agent petitioned the trial court to extend defendant’s probation for one year.  On September 24, 2015, the court agreed and entered an order extending probation until June 25, 2016.  Meanwhile, on December 4, 2015, probation agents conducted a compliance check at defendant’s home and found heroin.  When arrested, defendant was found to be in possession of heroin.  He was charged with two counts of possession with intent to deliver heroin and with violating probation.  He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the December 4 compliance check search was illegal because the trial court lacked authority to extend his probation period after it had expired.  The trial court denied the motion.  The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split published opinion.  The appeals court unanimously agreed that under People v Marks, 340 Mich 495 (1954), the trial court was authorized to extend defendant’s probation after it expired.  One judge dissented, in part, on due process grounds.  The Supreme Court has directed oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to address:  (1) whether the Tuscola Circuit Court had jurisdiction to extend the defendant’s probationary term in September 2015; and (2) whether the extension of the probationary term without notice or a hearing violated the defendant’s due process rights.  Compare People v Marks, 340 Mich 495 (1954), with Gagnon v Scarpelli, 411 US 778 (1973). ​