By Lee Dryden
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT — Judge Thomas G. Power believes the district and circuit courts in the three northern Michigan counties he serves have a good system in place.
He doesn’t want it to change.
“We have developed, over a period of 20 years and more, a web of understandings and arrangements to handle our relationship,” he told the Michigan Supreme Court. “It has worked quite well.”
Power, of the 13th Circuit Court in Antrim, Grand Traverse and Leelanau counties, addressed the high court May 17 during a public administrative hearing on proposed court rule amendments.
He urged justices to reject the addition of MCR 6.008 that would eliminate the practice of circuit courts remanding cases to district courts except where otherwise provided by law.
Power warned that the change would stifle the effective practice of routing cases to the district court’s specialty courts for sobriety, domestic violence and mental health.
Remand to district court would remain a possibility in “certain limited circumstances,” including where the evidence is insufficient to support the bindover, there was a defect in the waiver of the right to a preliminary examination or the prosecutor adds a new charge on which the defendant did not have a preliminary examination, according to a staff comment on the proposed rule.
“The proposal is intended to promote greater uniformity and address a practice that varies among courts,” the comment stated.
Power’s three-county area is covered by two circuit judges and two 86th District Court judges. In felony cases, some plea bargains in the circuit court include an agreement to remand the case to district court so the defendant can participate in a specialty court, Power said. If accepted, the district court will take a plea.
If the specialty court program is successfully completed, the defendant will avoid jail and the conviction will be reduced. If he or she fails, a sentencing will occur in the circuit court for a felony and the district court for a misdemeanor.
“This has worked quite well,” Power said, adding that the practice would be forbidden by the proposed new guidelines. “It allows us to take advantage of the initiative and leadership our district court has shown in establishing these specialty courts.
“There’s no reason to outlaw this system.”
Power added, “I suspect this proposal is to solve a local problem somewhere where district judges and circuit judges aren’t getting along. But it’s a statewide solution that creates problems for a lot of the rest of us.”
While Power was the only speaker on the issue during the public hearing, others expressed their views in writing in the comment period that extended from Jan. 26 to May 1.
“From an administrative viewpoint, this would cause a hardship for the District Court,” wrote Dena Altheide, director of court operations for the 67th District Court in Flint. “I would much rather see the misdemeanor cases remanded back to District Court for a plea and sentence.
“District Court judges are very familiar with the laws regarding misdemeanors. Not saying Circuit Court judges are not equipped, but District Judges deal with these types of cases on a daily basis.”
Judge Joyce Draganchuk, presiding judge of the general trial division of the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County, wrote on behalf of all judges in the division to express opposition to the proposed rule.
“The proposed new rule would alter and limit the statutory grant of jurisdiction to district courts and it would preclude remand of criminal cases for the sole purpose of entering a plea to a misdemeanor in district court,” she wrote.
“In most cases, it is not in the best interests of anyone to delay the taking of a misdemeanor plea by remanding the case to district court. Nevertheless, such a remand is necessary in certain limited situations. One of those limited situations may be that the district court is better equipped to supervise certain misdemeanor offenders on probation. The proposed rule would eliminate the ability to fit the offender to the proper level of supervision.
“We should all be working together to best serve the public. To that end, service of the courts should be expanded to the extent possible rather than restricted.”
The Michigan District Judges Association strongly endorsed adoption of the new rule in a letter to the court.
“Although we believe the law is clear and existing law supports the position taken by this proposed court rule, many courts have experienced confusion
regarding attempted misdemeanor remands from circuit court back to district court. Adoption of this court rule should resolve that confusion,” wrote the group’s president Judge Thomas P. Boyd of the 55th District Court in Ingham County.
Boyd also mentioned “problematic” language in the proposal.
“It is our understanding that the drafters of this language intend to point out that concurrent jurisdiction planning may be utilized to move cases more suitable to district court probation supervision back to the district court setting (with a district court judge sitting as a circuit court judge),” he wrote. “Many agree that some misdemeanor cases are best supervised by district court staff. The proposed subsection (E) is not necessary to effectuate such a result. Moreover, the current language creates a risk of confusion over the drafters’ intentions.
“In any event, the MDJA feels strongly that the supervising district court judge should have a say in which cases are appropriate for this treatment.”
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym L. Worthy expressed support particularly for the provision of the proposed rule that states, “The circuit court may remand a criminal case to the district court only as provided by law.”
“Though this ought to be understood as the law independent of a court rule, too often remands to the district court occur, even after perfectly valid waivers of the right to a preliminary examination, occasionally causing a fair degree of tension between the circuit court judge and the district court judge,” she wrote.
The State Bar of Michigan Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee voted to support the proposed rule, “as it promotes uniformity within the justice system,” according to its letter to the court.
The SBM Board of Commissioners took no position on the matter.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
