People v. Deans

• Decision Date: 27 December 1991
• Docket Number: No. 138881,138881
• Citation: 480 N.W.2d 334,192 Mich.App. 327
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard DEANS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. 192 Mich.App. 327, 480 N.W.2d 334
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 334

480 N.W.2d 334

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Leonard DEANS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 138881.

192 Mich.App. 327, 480 N.W.2d 334

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Dec. 3, 1991, at Grand Rapids.

Decided Dec. 27, 1991, at 9:35 a.m.

Released for Publication March 10, 1992.

[192 MICHAPP 328]Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol.Gen., William A. Forsyth, Pros.Atty., and Timothy K. McMorrow, Chief Appellate Atty., for the People.

Frank Stanley, P.C. by Frank Stanley, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.

[192 MICHAPP 329]Before WAHLS, P.J., and SHEPHERD and NEFF, JJ.

WAHLS, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals by leave granted from an order of the Kent Circuit Court that denied his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and his motion for remand to the juvenile court for sentencing.Defendant was apparently sixteen years old at the time he committed the offenses for which he was tried.Defendant was originally charged in the circuit court with one count of assault with intent to murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.83;M.S.A. Sec. 28.278, two counts of felonious assault, M.C.L. Sec. 750.82;M.S.A. Sec. 28.277, one count of possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine, M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401(2)(a)(iv);M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv), and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b;M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2).The two counts of felonious assault were dismissed before trial, which was held before a jury in the circuit court.The jury found defendant guilty of the lesser offense of felonious assault, possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine, and felony-firearm.After defendant's posttrial motions were denied, further proceedings were stayed by stipulation while defendant sought leave to appeal.This Court granted leave, limited to the jurisdictional and sentencing issues raised below.Defendant does not challenge his conviction of felonious assault.

Subject to a few exceptions, the juvenile division of the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning a child under seventeen years of age.M.C.L. Sec. 712A.2(a);M.S.A. Sec. 27.3178(598.2)(a).In the present case, defendant was tried in the circuit court because the probate court's jurisdiction over him allegedly had been automatically waived, at the prosecutor's option, by operation of [192 MICHAPP 330] M.C.L. Sec. 600.606;M.S.A. Sec. 27A.606.That statute, enacted by 1988 P.A. 52 and effective October 1, 1988, provides:

The circuit court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine a violation of section 83, 89, 91, 316, 317, 520b, or 529 of the Michigan penal code, ActNo. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.83,750.89,750.91,750.316,750.317,750.520b, and750.529 of the Michigan Complied Laws, or section 7401(2)(a)(i) or 7403(2)(a)(i) of the public health code, ActNo. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being sections 333.7401and333.7403 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, if committed by a juvenile 15 years of age or older and less than 17 years of age.

Defendant now argues that, because possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine, M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401(2)(a)(iv);M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv), and felony-firearm, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b;M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2), are not violations enumerated in M.C.L. Sec. 600.606;M.S.A. Sec. 27A.606, the automatic waiver of the probate court's jurisdiction was invalid and the circuit court had no jurisdiction over defendant with regard to these charges.We agree.The statute is clear and unambiguous.M.C.L. Sec. 600.606;M.S.A. Sec. 27A.606 provides an exception to the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile division of the probate court over juveniles.The enumeration of the nine felonies implies the exclusion of all others.People v. Mahler, 156 Mich.App. 799, 803; 402 N.W.2d 93(1986).While it may be inconvenient for the prosecutor to initiate probate court waiver proceedings in order to charge a juvenile defendant in the circuit court with nonenumerated felonies that may have arisen out of the same transaction as an enumerated felony, we are bound by the Legislature's limited grant of automatic jurisdiction over [192 MICHAPP 331] juveniles to the circuit court and cannot judicially enlarge it.

The prosecutor argues that once a juvenile is charged with an enumerated felony, probate court jurisdiction may be automatically waived for all other felonies under a theory of pendent or ancillary jurisdiction in the circuit court.We disagree.Circuit courts are presumed to have original jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law.Const. 1963, art. 6, Sec. 13;People v. Loukas, 104 Mich.App. 204, 304 N.W.2d 532(1981).Thus, for example, because circuit court jurisdiction over certain misdemeanor offenses is not prohibited by law, the circuit courts possess concurrent jurisdiction over those misdemeanors with the district courts where one of those misdemeanors is joined with a felony.Loukas, supra.In this case, however, jurisdiction over juveniles, superior to that of any other court, is expressly and exclusively invested in the juvenile division of the probate court by law, M.C.L. Sec. 712A.2;M.S.A. Sec. 27.3178(598.2), subject to some exceptions.M.C.L. Sec. 600.606;M.S.A. Sec. 27A.606 does not grant the circuit court blanket jurisdiction over juveniles; rather, it grants jurisdiction to determine violations of certain offenses if committed by juveniles.The prosecutor has identified no authority that would grant the circuit court some type of pendent jurisdiction in opposition to that given the probate courts.

We conclude that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to try defendant on the charges of possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine and felony-firearm.Those convictions are therefore vacated.

Defendant does not challenge the validity of his felonious assault conviction.He argues, however, that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to sentence him for this conviction and that he must be sentenced[192 MICHAPP 332] by the probate court.We disagree.Defendant argues that no statute authorizes him to be sentenced by the circuit court.He also points to MCR 6.931, which requires that a juvenile sentencing hearing be held whenever a juvenile is convicted of a life offense...