The Michigan Court of Appeals recently examined a wide range of arguments, ultimately finding that the trial court erred by imposing a fine, but upholding its orders for restitution. In People v. Foster, No. 329992, the defendant “pleaded guilty to two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, MCL 750.110, and one count of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, MCL 333.7401(2)(b)(i).” The prosecution agreed to drop the charges in exchange for the defendant’s agreement to pay restitution.

After hearing testimony on the issue, the trial court concluded it was reasonable for the officers to have proceeded to the backyard after observing signs the residents were likely present and therefore denied the defendants’ motion to suppress. Consequently, the defendants entered conditional guilty pleas to one count of manufacturing between 20 and 200 marijuana plants, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii). The defendants proceeded to apply for leave to appeal to the trial court’s denial of their motion to suppress.

In People v. Robertson, No. 151342, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument on whether the defendant should be given leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision that the police’s search of his person was supported by probable cause. The defendant was charged with one count of possession of heroin with intent to deliver under MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii). Police found the heroin in the defendant’s boxer shorts after a drug dog “alerted” at defendant’s luggage at a bus station, although no drugs were found in the luggage.

Defendant was consorting with a former prostitute (Corson) and funding her crack cocaine and heroin habit.After Corson had introduced a friend (Gregory) to heroin, Gregory used heroin defendant and Corson had purchased using defendant’s money.In part because she had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol before using heroin with Corson, Gregorydied.Defendant was charged with delivery causing death (MCL 750.317a), and delivery of heroin under 50 (MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv)).The district court rejected defendant’s sufficiency argument and bound over on both charges, but the circuit court found no evidence of delivery and granted defendant’s motion to quash as to both (the court allowed bindover on one count of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine (MCL333.7401(2)(a)(iv)), and maintaining a drug house (MCL 333.7405(1)(d)).The court of appeals agreed with the circuit court, finding that since defendant did not actually or constructively deliver heroin to Corson, the charges could not be brought.