Michigan Supreme Court: Summary of Applications/Oral Argument on Applications Granted May 2022

Mini-Oral Argument on Application Granted
 
People v Nicholas Lyon, MSC No. 164191 (COA No. 360548), MOAA granted March 23, 2022

• MCL 767.3 and 767.4/Separation of Powers

The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 violate Michigan’s constitutional requirement of separation of powers, Mich Const 1963, art 3, § 2; (2) whether those statutes confer charging authority on a member of the judiciary; (3) whether a defendant charged after a proceeding conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 is entitled to a preliminary examination; and (4) whether the proceedings conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 violated due process, Mich Const 1963, art 1, § 17.  

People v Marcus Lavell Lewis, MSC No. 162743 (COA No. 349774), MOAA granted March 23, 2022

• Search Warrant/Sufficient Nexus

The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the search warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the alleged drug trafficking and defendant’s home, see Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 238 (1983); compare United States v Brown, 828 F3d 375 (CA 6, 2016), with United States v White, 874 F3d 490 (CA 6, 2017), and United States v Reed, 993 F3d 441 (CA 6, 2021); and (2) if not, whether the officers relied on the search warrant in good faith. People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523 (2004). 

People v Richard Louis Baird, MSC No. 163672 (COA No. 357715), MOAA granted March 30, 2022

• MCL 767.3 and 767.4/Preliminary Examination

The Court directed the parties to address whether a defendant charged with a felony after a proceeding conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 is entitled to a preliminary examination. 

People v Candace Renee Guyton, MSC No. 163700 (COA No. 354221), MOAA granted April 1, 2022

• Understanding, Accurate, Voluntary Plea

The Court directed the parties to address whether the appellant’s plea was not understanding, accurate and voluntary because the prosecutor misinformed her that by pleading guilty she would not be prosecuted as a third habitual offender when, in fact, she could only have been prosecuted as a second habitual offender. 

People v Benoni Jonathan Enisco, MSC No. 162311 (COA No. 342965), MOAA granted April 15, 2022

• Lack of Physical Presence at Sentencing

The Court directed the parties to address: (1) a defendant’s unpreserved claim regarding his or her lack of physical presence at sentencing is subject to review for plain error; (2) lack of presence at sentencing is structural error; (3) if the error is not structural how a defendant could show the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings; and (4) if the error is structural how a prosecutor could rebut the presumption that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See People v Davis, ___ Mich ___ (2022) (Docket No. 161396).

by John Zevalking
Associate Editor