People v. Wright, Docket No. 31512

• Decision Date: 20 March 1979
• Docket Number: Docket No. 31512
• Citation: 89 Mich.App. 244,280 N.W.2d 836
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. 89 Mich.App. 244, 280 N.W.2d 836
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 836

280 N.W.2d 836

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 31512.

89 Mich.App. 244, 280 N.W.2d 836

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 20, 1979.

Released for Publication July 12, 1979.

[89 MICHAPP 246] Harold M. Ryan, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Larry L. Roberts, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before RILEY, P. J., and CAVANAGH and HENSICK, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged and convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting the delivery of heroin, M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a), M.C.L. § 767.39; M.S.A. § 28.979, and appeals by right.

From mid-September to November, 1974, defendant was under police surveillance for suspected trafficking in heroin. During this time, a police informant and an undercover policewoman made numerous purchases of heroin that had been supplied by defendant but delivered to them by an intermediary. This period of surveillance ended with defendant's arrest on November 7, 1974. The [89 MICHAPP 247] prosecutor brought a number of separate but related cases against the defendant as a result of this investigation, one of which ended in defendant's conviction and incarceration on September 18, 1975.

Defendant raises essentially four claims of error; due to our view of this case, however, we find it unnecessary to discuss three of these errors and direct our attention to defendant's claim that the prosecutor violated M.C.L. § 780.131; M.S.A. § 28.969(1), by failing to bring the defendant to trial on a pending information within the 180 days specified in the statute. As a result, the defendant asserts that the trial court lost jurisdiction to try the instant case and that it must be dismissed.

M.C.L. § 780.131; M.S.A. § 28.969(1) ¹ provides a 180-day period in which a state prison inmate must be brought to trial on an outstanding charge. The sanction for violation is the court's loss of jurisdiction and dismissal. M.C.L. § 780.133; M.S.A. § 28.969(3) ². [89 MICHAPP 248] Although the literal language of the statute speaks in terms of notice between prosecutor and the Department of Corrections to trigger the 180-day period, judicial interpretation has made it clear that actual notice is not necessary. People v. Hill, 402 Mich. 272, 280-281, 262 N.W.2d 641 (1978), People v. Parker, 21 Mich.App. 399, 407, 175 N.W.2d 879 (1970).

In circumstances where there is a warrant, information, indictment or complaint outstanding against a defendant, the 180-day period is commenced by the coincidence of

"(His) incarceration * * * in a state prison or (his) detention * * * in a local facility to await such incarceration * * * (and) the Department of Corrections knows or should know that a warrant, indictment, or complaint is pending against one sentenced to their custody." People v. Hill, supra, 402 Mich. at 281, 262 N.W.2d at 644.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced on September 18, 1975, on another charge while another indictment was pending against him. The record does not reveal the actual date of his delivery to the Department of Corrections. In their brief, the People assert that the defendant was not "under lock and key" from September 18, 1975, to June 25, 1976, apparently to raise the issue of defendant's actual incarceration. However, the People do not argue that the defendant was not in custody during this period or present an alternative method by which to measure the 180-day statutory period. That the defendant had appeared in other court proceedings during this period does not alter the ultimate fact of his detention on or about September 18, 1975, and that the Department of [89 MICHAPP 249] Corrections knew or should have known of the outstanding untried information against defendant as of that date. The coincidence of these two events marked the beginning of the statutory 180-day period.

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the People complied with the statutory requirement that "such inmate shall be brought to trial within 180 days". M.C.L. § 780.131; M.S.A. § 28.969(1). It is clear that the prosecutor need not conclude the trial within the 180 days. The People must, however, take good faith action to ready the case for trial within that time. People v. Hill, supra, at 281, 262 N.W.2d 641, People v. Castelli, 370 Mich. 147, 121 N.W.2d 438 (1963), People v. Hendershot, 357 Mich. 300, 98 N.W.2d 568 (1959). Courts have found lack of good-faith action where the prosecution did not keep a case alive with continued good-faith action, ³ or where there has been a period of unexplained inaction in excess of 180 days ⁴ or where the initial good faith action is followed by an "inexcusable delay" which evidences an intent not to bring the case to trial promptly. ⁵

An examination in some detail of the proceedings in the instant case is needed before a determination of compliance or noncompliance with the 180-day rule can be made.

Defendant was originally arraigned on the information on November 15, 1974. He was convicted of other violations of the Controlled Substances Act on September 18, 1975, that also grew out of the same period of police surveillance. As of that date, the instant case had not been tried or otherwise disposed of. After this conviction, the following [89 MICHAPP 250] proceedings in the case at bar appear on the record as occurring within the 180-day period:

September 26, 1975 : The case is transferred to the Prosecutor's Repeat Offender Bureau of the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office for handling.

November 18, 1975 : The prosecutor dismissed as to a co-defendant, taking no action as to defendant.

December 11, 1975 : Trial is adjourned without date by the court.

February 9, 1976 : Trial date of April 8, 1976, is set. ⁶

After the expiration of the 180-day limit trial was adjourned twice more, with the latest adjournment setting trial for July 21, 1976. ⁷ Three writs of habeas corpus were procured to obtain the presence of defendant at trial, once on May 10, 1976, once on June 4, 1976, for pre-trial, and finally on June 16, 1976, for trial on June 21. The case was assigned to another trial judge; trial finally commenced on June 25, 1976.

Case law indicates that the People have the burden of establishing good faith action to comply with M.C.L. § 780.131; M.S.A. § 28.969(1). People v. Hill, supra, 402 Mich. at 282, 262 N.W.2d 641; see also, People v. Forrest, 72 Mich.App. 266, 273, 249 N.W.2d 384 (1976). The people urge that they have met this burden by arguing that the defendant was brought to trial as soon as possible under the prevailing circumstances, pointing out that trial in the instant case was delayed by three intervening cases.

[89 MICHAPP 251] In People v. Hill, supra, 402 Mich. at 282, 262 N.W.2d 641, the Supreme Court determined that delay of a defendant's trial resulting from other proceedings does not necessarily constitute a violation of M.C.L. § 780.131; M.S.A. § 28.969(1). However, the Court did not view such delay as justification for an automatic finding of good faith, but placed a duty on the prosecutor to demonstrate the reasonableness of his action.

In examining the record, ⁸ we note that the intervening proceedings asserted as justification for the delay comprised pre-trials in two cases, held on the same day before the same judge. The trials were later adjourned and the cases eventually dismissed after sentencing in the instant case. Trial in yet a third case involving defendant commenced on April 4, 1976, and continued through April 6, 1976, at which time it was adjourned one week to await motions. The case evidently also did not proceed to verdict and sentencing and was dismissed after sentence was passed in the present case. It thus appears that a two-month hiatus existed between defendant's April trial and the trial here.

We therefore do not find the delay to have been so reasonable as to justify a violation of the 180-day rule. The preliminaries in the instant case were complete many months in advance of trial. The intervening cases developed from the extensive surveillance of defendant involved the same principals and related violations of the Controlled Substances Act. Due to their similarities, these cases appear not to have created any particular problems of trial preparation that might reasonably[89 MICHAPP 252] create delay, nor does the prosecutor direct our attention to any difficulties in this regard.

We note, in concluding that the delay was not reasonable, that a prosecutor has a certain control in the management of his docket. He must be aware, in filing simultaneously several charges against one defendant, that a conviction of any one will trigger the 180-day rule. He must, therefore, absent delays by the defendant or extraordinary circumstances, take sufficient good faith action on...