Opinion
SC: 165395 COA: 364089 SC: 165397 COA: 364088
06-21-2023
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Federico Luis CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant. People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Nathaniel Launsburry, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The applications for leave to appeal the February 21, 2023 orders of the Court of Appeals are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions for stay are DENIED.
Viviano, J. (concurring).
I concur with the Court's decision to deny leave to appeal in these cases because I agree with the Court of Appeals that Chief Judge Mark A. Trusock did not abuse his discretion in reassigning the cases to himself. I write to briefly respond to a few points raised by the dissent.
Most significantly, I do not believe the chief judge "disregarded" the applicable court rule; instead, I agree with the Court of Appeals that he properly applied it. MCR 8.111(C)(1) states, in relevant part, "If a judge ... for other good cause cannot undertake an assigned case, the chief judge may reassign it to another judge by a written order stating the reason. To the extent feasible , the alternate judge should be selected by lot." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the court rule provides chief judges with the authority to reassign a case to another judge and the discretion to forgo traditional reassignment by lot if that method is not feasible.
I believe the chief judge in these cases provided an adequate rationale for the reassignments. At the hearing held on October 28, 2022, Chief Judge Trusock explained that he was the only judge in the circuit whose docket was not backlogged. Indeed, Chief Judge Trusock lamented that the Kent Circuit Court attempted to work around the physical closure of courtrooms imposed by our administrative orders but was unable to do so. He also indicated that he was concerned about transferring an overloaded docket to Judge Scott A. Noto, who was just moved to the civil/criminal division and would be taking over Judge Curt A. Benson's cases after Judge Benson's assignment to the business court. Contrary to the dissent's characterization, the chief judge did not assert that "Judge Noto was not yet capable of handling" the resentencing hearings. Instead, it is evident from his ruling that he believed that resentencing hearings pursuant to Miller v Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and MCL 769.25a were complex and therefore would be time-consuming. This is indisputably true. As the prosecutor notes, the legal landscape surrounding juvenile sentencings and resentencings in our state is rapidly changing and complex. I cannot fathom how reassigning complex and time-consuming cases to a judge whose docket was current to lessen the burden on a judge who was just handed a severely backlogged docket with many homicide and other serious criminal cases awaiting trial is "outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." On the contrary, I agree with the assessment of the Court of Appeals that the chief judge's decision was "an eminently reasonable approach."
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and this Court's response to it, courts across the state, including in Kent County, have experienced significant backlogs. See, e.g., Tunison, MLive, With Trial Backlogs in the Hundreds, Kent and Ottawa County Judges Hope to Begin Clearing Cases (March 5, 2021) < https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2021/03/with-trial-backlogs-in-the-hundreds-kent-and-ottawa-county-judges-hope-to-begin-clearing-cases.html> (accessed June 15, 2023) [https://perma.cc/E9GE-DJQ9]. See also Pierret, WJRT, Working Through 1300+ Case Backlog, Prosecutor Says Plea Deals Necessary (June 15, 2021) < https://www.abc12.com/news/crime/working-through-1300-case-backlog-prosecutor-says-plea-deals-necessary/article_f55a8638-9303-51a9-a2c9-30b096ada2b5.html> (accessed June 20, 2023) [https://perma.cc/MG96-YJ39]; Brand-Williams, The Detroit News, Felony Case Backlogs Grow in Detroit Area Courts (January 23, 2022) < https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/01/24/felony-case-backlogs-grow-detroit-area-courts/9117480002/> (accessed June 20, 2023). These backlogs were caused in large measure by the administrative orders we adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the period of uncertainty at the beginning of the pandemic, our approach was understandable. But with the value of hindsight, I now believe that a number of our orders—which were effective statewide and did not adequately account for different situations in different courts—went too far and prevented our justice system from efficiently functioning. See Order Retaining, Further Amending, and Rescinding In Part the Michigan Court Rule Changes Adopted July 26, 2021, 510 Mich ––––, –––– (August 10, 2022) ( Viviano , J., dissenting); slip order at 24-25. By contrast, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, which has jurisdiction over 49 of Michigan's 83 counties, continued holding jury trials during the pandemic. See People v Witkoski , ––– Mich ––––, ––––; 986 NW2d 141, 143 (2023) ( Viviano , J., dissenting).
Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass'n , 499 Mich. 269, 274, 884 N.W.2d 257 (2016).
People v Cruz , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 21, 2023 (Docket No. 364089). Further, while the chief judge's ruling focused on the "good cause" aspect of the court rule, these same reasons support his decision not to select the alternate judge by lot: if the goal was to alleviate an overburdened docket and the chief judge was the only alternate judge whose docket was not overburdened, it would not be "feasible" (i.e., "capable of being done, effected, or accomplished," see Dictionary.com, Feasible Definition & Meaning< https://www.dictionary.com/browse/feasible> (accessed June 19, 2023) [https://perma.cc/24XZ-GZW9]) to randomly reassign the cases by lot. Of course, whenever it is possible, I agree that cases should be reassigned randomly by blind draw.
In addition, I disagree with the dissent that People v Bennett , ––– Mich App ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2022 WL 15525712 (2022) (Docket No. 354903), should be extended to preclude the reassignments. Under Bennett , "a defendant is entitled to be sentenced before the judge who accepts the plea , provided that judge is reasonably available." The purported rationale for the rule is that the judge who accepted the plea can ensure that the sentence is "based upon the circumstances established at the time of the plea." But neither the rule nor its rationale applies here, since there was no plea hearing and the judge who presided over defendants’ trials in these cases has long since retired. To make matters worse, as the Court of Appeals in Bennett itself observed, there is no constitutional or statutory basis for the rule. Such an ethereal and inapt rule has little to recommend it here.
Bennett , ––– Mich App at ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––; slip op. at 4 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Id. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d –––– (quotation marks omitted), quoting People v Pierce , 158 Mich App 113, 115, 404 N.W.2d 230 (1987), and People v Lee , 489 Mich. 289, 300 n 7, 803 N.W.2d 165 (2011). But the Court of Appeals panel was skeptical of this rationale and begrudgingly applied it because it was bound to do so. Bennett , ––– Mich App at ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, slip op. at 4 ("To be sure, the combination of a judge's ability to review a recording or transcript of the plea hearing and the ready access to a detailed PSIR arguably renders unsound that justification of the rule."); see also id. at –––– n 6, ––– N.W.2d ––––.
Id. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––; slip op. at 3 ("And so a legal concept was born without any identified constitutional or statutory basis.").
This Court appoints our chief judges to serve as directors of the administration of the trial courts, and we have given them both the authority and responsibility to "supervise caseload management and monitor disposition of the judicial work of the court[.]" The reassignments here were a reasonable attempt by Chief Judge Trusock to address the backlog of cases in the Kent Circuit Court caused in part by this Court's one-size-fits-all response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Having placed our chief judges and trial courts in a difficult spot, we should not micromanage our chief judges’ efforts to ensure the timely disposition of cases in the courts they supervise. The Court of Appeals correctly found no abuse of discretion, and I agree that denial of leave is appropriate.
Zahra, J., joins the statement of Viviano, J.
Welch, J. (dissenting).
While judges are provided broad discretion on most matters at the trial court level, our court rules and caselaw provide guardrails to ensure that our courts operate fairly and with transparency. The circuit court in these matters disregarded a court rule regarding how cases are assigned to judges. While this may seem a trivial detail when compared to the import of the decisions made in our courts, our system appears less than fair when our court rules are disregarded. In this matter, Kent Circuit Court Chief Judge Mark A. Trusock assigned two juvenile resentencing matters to himself after the judge who previously managed the cases was reassigned to the business docket. Because I believe these reassignments are contrary to both our court rules and caselaw, I dissent.
Defendants, Federico L. Cruz and Stephen N. Launsburry, have been imprisoned since the 1990s, sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after committing first-degree murder when they were 16 years old. In Miller v Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that because juveniles are different from adults, the United States Constitution requires that various attributes of youth must be considered when sentencing juveniles convicted of first-degree murder to life without parole. Miller , 567 U.S. at 477, 132 S.Ct. 2455. The Court noted that a life-without-parole sentence should be reserved only for those who are permanently incorrigible and incapable of reform. Id. at 472-473, 132 S.Ct. 2455. As a result, the sentencing process for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder shifted dramatically and now requires a specific hearing to assess the factors outlined in Miller if a prosecutor is seeking a life-without-parole sentence. MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a (incorporating the Miller hearing process into Michigan's sentencing statute); People v Taylor , 510 Mich. 112, 138, 987 N.W.2d 132 (2022) (holding that the combination of Miller and MCL 769.25 creates a rebuttable presumption against life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders and that the prosecution must overcome this presumption by clear and convincing evidence). Individuals like defendants who were serving life-without-parole sentences prior to the time the United States Supreme Court decided Miller are eligible for resentencing in light of these changes. Montgomery v Louisiana , 577 U.S. 190, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016) (holding that Miller must be applied retroactively); MCL 769.25a ; and People v Skinner , 502 Mich. 89, 917 N.W.2d 292 (2018).
After the defendants’ Miller hearings, Judge Dennis B. Leiber of the Kent Circuit Court imposed the identical life-without-parole sentences on both defendants. Defendants appealed, citing fairness concerns. While the appeals were pending, both defendants also filed motions for resentencing, and defendant Cruz moved for an evidentiary hearing. Judge Leiber retired in 2018 and was replaced by Judge Curt A. Benson. With respect to defendant Cruz, after conducting the evidentiary hearing, Judge Benson ordered a second resentencing in 2019. With respect to defendant Launsburry, the parties stipulated in the matter before Judge Benson to a second resentencing following the prosecution's concession of error in September 2019. Defendants have yet to be resentenced.
In July 2022, Judge Benson was appointed to fill a vacancy on the business court for Kent County. Judge Scott A. Noto was then moved from the Kent Circuit Court Family Division to fill Judge Benson's prior seat. While Judge Benson retained some criminal sentencing matters after his business court reassignment, most of his criminal and civil docket was reassigned to Judge Noto. But rather than Judge Benson keeping defendants’ cases or Judge Noto assuming the cases as the successor judge, Chief Judge Trusock reassigned defendants’ cases to himself. Defendant Cruz moved to have his case reassigned to Judge Noto, the successor judge who assumed Judge Benson's docket, or to otherwise follow the court rules and have the case assigned randomly by drawing lots. Defendant Launsburry also filed a motion asking that his case be reassigned to Judge Noto or that alternatively his case be reassigned to Judge Paul J. Denenfeld, who had sentenced his codefendant and thus had familiarity with the case. Chief Judge Trusock denied their motions, citing the general need to control the court's backlog due to the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that Judge Noto had not yet presided over a criminal trial and generally lacked the requisite experience as a new judge to handle these juvenile resentencing hearings, and stating that experienced judges should handle these cases.
Defendants sought reconsideration, which was denied. Defendants filed joint applications for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, which that court denied for lack of merit, finding that there was good cause to reassign the cases to Chief Judge Trusock under MCR 8.111(C). Relevant to this appeal, MCR 8.111(C)(1) states:
If a judge is disqualified or for other good cause cannot undertake an assigned case , the chief judge may reassign it to another judge by a written order stating the reason. To the extent feasible, the alternate judge should be selected by lot. The chief judge shall file the order with the trial court clerk and have the clerk notify the attorneys of record. The chief judge may also designate a judge to act temporarily until a case is reassigned or during a temporary absence of a judge to whom a case has been assigned.
As an initial matter, I find it troublesome that a chief judge would reassign any matter to himself on the basis of its complexity. Before taking the bench, Judge Noto was a well-regarded attorney whose prior experience included serving 11 years in the Army Judge Advocate General Corps and representing a soldier facing the death penalty. Prior to his judicial reassignment in 2022, he was a judge in the family division for several years. New judges regularly assume the dockets of their predecessor judges without incident. In fact, Kent Circuit Court Local Administrative Order No. 2022-02 specifically assigned Judge Noto as the successor judge for the criminal and civil dockets of Judge Benson. To assume that an experienced attorney and judge is incapable of handling juvenile resentencing matters would seem to indicate that every new judge is incapable of taking over dockets replete with complicated matters. That is not the case. New judges take over complicated matters all the time. And, Miller resentencing hearings have been conducted in trial courts all across the state for many years at this point. As a result, I do not believe "complexity" is a "good cause" factor warranting reassignment in this case.
LAO 2022-02 requires that case assignments comply with MCR 8.111 "except as authorized by this plan or [LAO] adopted by MCR 8.112." It also provides that "[d]isqualification and reassignment of cases will be handled by the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court pursuant to MCR 2.003 and 8.111."
Second, it is well known that the pandemic created significant backlogs in courts across the nation. Docket control is certainly a valid consideration for our chief judges in assigning cases. But our court rule is clear on the process if there is in fact good cause to reassign a case. Specifically, MCR 8.111(C)(1) provides that "if a judge is disqualified or for other good cause cannot undertake an assigned case," then the chief judge may reassign the case. But the rule goes further and requires that "to the extent feasible, the alternate judge should be selected by lot. " In this matter, Chief Judge Trusock assigned only some of Judge Noto's matters to himself. Chief Judge Trusock disregarded our court rule by not assigning these cases by lot or, at a minimum, providing a specific explanation as to why it was not feasible to reassign these cases by lot, as the court rule dictates. While Chief Judge Trusock cites in general terms the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (in addition to his belief that Judge Noto was not yet capable of handling complex matters), this general assertion raises questions when only one judge—the Chief Judge himself—deems that he alone among many other judges can handle a specific matter. Specific reasons should be offered to show that other judges are indeed unavailable or random assignment is not feasible. Otherwise, the judicial assignment does not appear random and appears to the public to be preordained.
Third, there is a strong argument that Judge Benson, despite being reassigned to the business docket, could have retained these cases. The record is devoid of evidence that Judge Benson could not retain these juvenile matters or that, pursuant to MCR 8.111(C)(1), "for other good cause [could not] undertake an assigned case[.]" Judge Benson remained in the same courthouse and had previously handled other postconviction matters for these defendants that required familiarity with the record. He, in fact, retained some of his criminal sentencing matters after his reassignment. While certainly his new docket was very full, the record is lacking information as to whether he was able to have retained these cases.
The Court of Appeals recently noted that both this Court and the Court of Appeals have many times set forth the general concept that a defendant should be sentenced by the judge who conducted the defendant's trial or plea, provided that judge is " ‘reasonably available.’ " People v Bennett , ––– Mich App ––––, ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2022 WL 15525712 (2022) (Docket No. 354903); slip op. at 3, quoting People v Clemons , 407 Mich. 939, 939, 291 N.W.2d 927 (1979) ; People v Van Auker (After Remand) , 132 Mich App 394, 399, 347 N.W.2d 466 (1984), rev'd on other grounds 419 Mich. 918, 354 N.W.2d 258 (1984) ; and People v Humble , 146 Mich App 198, 200, 379 N.W.2d 422 (1985). The Bennett panel noted that the reason for this concept is that the judge who hears evidence during the plea proceedings is in the best position to ensure that defendant's sentence is tailored to the particular circumstances of the case and the offender. Id. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––; slip op. at 3-4, citing People v Pierce , 158 Mich App 113, 115, 404 N.W.2d 230 (1987) ; and People v Lee , 489 Mich. 289, 300 n 7, 803 N.W.2d 165 (2011). A good argument exists that the logic of Bennett can be extended to the reassignments that occurred in this case. While Judge Benson was not involved with the initial criminal proceedings for these defendants given that those occurred over 25 years ago, the defendants previously had postconviction proceedings in front of Judge Benson, who succeeded the original judge on their matters. The main rationale underlying our long-established principle that a judge who presides over the criminal proceedings should sentence the defendant, provided that judge is reasonably available, is that the sentencing judge is in the best possible position to ensure that a defendant's sentence is tailored to the particular circumstances of the case and the offender. This familiarity justification sounds in both fairness and efficiency. It should apply with no less force here, where Judge Benson determined that there were errors in the imposition of defendants’ sentences that needed to be rectified through resentencing.
In Bennett , the defendant's guilty plea was taken before Judge Sterling R. Schrock in November 2019. Because Judge Schrock was reassigned to a different Berrien County courthouse, the defendant was sentenced before Judge Charles T. LaSata in January 2020. The court had followed MCR 8.111(C)(2) regarding concurrent-jurisdiction judges, but the Court of Appeals still determined that the plea-taking judge had to handle the sentencing. The Court of Appeals therefore remanded the matter and ordered defendant to be sentenced before Judge Schrock.
In summary, the defendants in this matter were entitled to resentencing by either Judge Noto or Judge Benson. If good cause existed as to why either of them was not available, then assignment should have occurred randomly by drawing lots to the extent possible. Both Kent County's LAO 2022-02 and our court rule regarding judicial reassignments, MCR 8.111, are designed to ensure that our courts avoid the appearance that judges can hand-pick which cases they want to handle. When our courts fail to abide by that process, parties lose faith in the fairness of our criminal justice system. For these reasons, I dissent.
Bolden, J., joins the statement of Welch, J.