From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dunson

Michigan Court of Appeals
Oct 26, 1984
139 Mich. App. 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

Docket No. 73964.

Decided October 26, 1984.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Civil and Appeals, and Janice M. Joyce Bartee, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. Angela R. Sims, for defendant on appeal.

Before: HOOD, P.J., and R.M. MAHER and WAHLS, JJ.


Defendant pled guilty to a charge of unlawfully driving away an automobile, MCL 750.413; MSA 28.645, and was sentenced to five years probation, with the first six months to be served in the Detroit House of Correction. He appeals as of right.

Defendant argues that his conviction must be reversed because his preliminary examination was held more than 12 days after he was brought before a magistrate, contrary to MCL 766.4; MSA 28.922, and that this delay was not for "good cause shown". Before reaching this issue, we must first determine whether or not defendant has waived his right to raise this claim by pleading guilty.

In People v Alvin Johnson, 396 Mich. 424; 240 N.W.2d 729 (1976), the Supreme Court stated that a guilty plea generally waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings, except those defects akin to jurisdictional defects because they "might provide a complete defense to a criminal prosecution, * * * undercut the state's interest in punishing the defendant, of [affect] the state's authority or ability to proceed with the trial * * *". 396 Mich. 444. Defendant argues that his statutory right to have his preliminary examination within 12 days of being brought before a magistrate is a right which, had it been asserted, would have prevented the trial from taking place and is, therefore, within the category of rights found in Alvin Johnson not to be waived by a guilty plea.

We disagree. MCL 766.4; MSA 28.922 provides that "[t]he magistrate before whom any person is brought on a charge of having committed a felony shall set a day for a preliminary examination not exceeding 12 days thereafter". In People v Weston, 413 Mich. 371; 319 N.W.2d 537 (1982), the Supreme Court interpreted this language strictly, ruling that the failure to comply with the statute, with or without prejudice to the defendant, entitled the defendant to his discharge, although without prejudice to the prosecutor's right to reinstate a prosecution against the defendant. 413 Mich. 376.

The defect of not bringing defendant to a timely preliminary examination is not, however, jurisdictional. MCL 766.7; MSA 28.925 provides that the magistrate may adjourn or continue the examination beyond the 12-day limitation "for good cause shown" and explicitly states that "[a]n action on the part of the magistrate in adjourning or continuing any case, shall not cause the magistrate to lose jurisdiction of the case". Thus, the Legislature has provided that in situations such as the one now before this Court, a delay beyond 12 days due to an adjournment does not deprive the magistrate of jurisdiction. In addition, the recorder's court judge who accepted the guilty plea was not without jurisdiction to take the plea because a preliminary examination is not an absolute prerequisite to the court's acquiring jurisdiction in light of the statutory provision permitting a defendant to waive his right to a preliminary examination. MCL 767.42(1); MSA 28.982(1); People v Hall, 97 Mich. App. 143, 147; 293 N.W.2d 742 (1980), aff'd 418 Mich. 189; 341 N.W.2d 436 (1983).

The defect is also not one which would bar the trial of defendant. Even if a particular trial might be barred by the failure to hold the preliminary examination in a timely fashion, the state is still fully authorized to bring defendant to trial again. Weston, supra. This defect is therefore distinguishable from those described in People v Alvin Johnson, where the infirmities deprive the state of its authority or undercut its interest in trying the defendant.

Because we have determined that defendant has waived his right to challenge the delay of his preliminary examination by pleading guilty, we do not address the merits of his claim.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Dunson

Michigan Court of Appeals
Oct 26, 1984
139 Mich. App. 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Dunson

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v DUNSON

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Oct 26, 1984

Citations

139 Mich. App. 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
363 N.W.2d 16

Citing Cases

People v. Stewart

In addition, even if the charges were dismissed, it would have been without prejudice, and the prosecution…

People v. Rashid

However, we believe that the fourteen-day Shelton rule is more closely analogous to the twelve-day rule of…