People v. Diehl (In re Diehl)
| Decision Date | 19 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 345672,345672 |
| Parties | IN RE DIEHL, Minor. People of the State of Michigan, Petitioner-Appellant, v. T. J. Diehl, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Jessica R. Cooper, Prosecuting Attorney, Thomas R. Grden, Appellate Division Chief, and Jeffrey M. Kaelin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Hugh R. Marshall, Warren, for defendant.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Servitto, JJ.
The prosecution appeals as of right the trial court's order "unauthorizing" two juvenile-delinquency petitions that alleged respondent had committed domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2), and larceny in a building, MCL 750.360 —both of which are offenses defined in § 31(1)(g) of the Crime Victim's Rights Act (CVRA), MCL 780.781 et seq. —and removing those petitions from the adjudicative process. We affirm the trial court's order but remand this case to the trial court to complete the ministerial tasks of (1) assigning separate petition numbers to each of respondent's three juvenile-delinquency petitions and (2) placing the separate petition numbers on all documents within respondent's case file that are related to each petition.
This case arises out of three juvenile-delinquency petitions issued by the prosecution against respondent. The first petition, dated July 24, 2017, alleged that respondent committed domestic violence against his adoptive mother, Diehl. Specifically, respondent was then 12 years old and had resided with Diehl since he was eight years of age. On July 23, 2017, respondent's biological sister was visiting the family but abruptly decided to end her visit. This caused respondent to scream at his sister, but respondent's brother called from California and was able to calm respondent down. Hours later, respondent wanted to read the newspaper, but Diehl told him that it was time to go to sleep. This caused respondent to become enraged, and he began to throw objects. Diehl went outside and called 911. The police photographed injuries to Diehl, but she attributed her bruises to a prior fall and an unspecified medical condition. Moreover, she opined that respondent did not intend to throw objects at her. The first petition was authorized after a preliminary hearing,1 and respondent was released into Diehl's custody with the condition that Diehl arrange counseling for respondent.
Two days after respondent was released into Diehl's custody, however, a second petition dated July 26, 2017, was issued, alleging that respondent had committed another act of domestic violence against Diehl. Specifically, the police2 were called by Diehl's neighbor who reported that respondent struck Diehl, causing her to fall to the ground and that respondent then continued to kick her. Diehl reportedly told the officers that respondent was agitated about attending court-ordered therapy and began to swing a bag. Although she denied being punched, Diehl reportedly admitted to the responding officers that respondent pushed her, causing her to fall to the ground. Following this preliminary hearing, the second petition was authorized. With regard to placement, it was noted that respondent was a good student with no disciplinary issues at school. It was determined that respondent would remain in custody until a pretrial was held. Pursuant to respondent's judge demand, the case was assigned to Oakland County Family Court Judge Victoria Valentine for its duration.
On August 8, 2017, a hearing was held before Judge Valentine. Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the domestic-violence charge in the first petition.3 Respondent did not enter a plea to the domestic-violence charge in the second petition at that time. With regard to the second petition, it was requested that the matter be set for trial with discovery occurring in the interim. Respondent's counsel requested that "the prosecutor ... consider dismissing the second [petition] since the Court will already have jurisdiction after you accept the plea." The prosecutor agreed that he would send respondent's counsel the necessary discovery and contemplate the dismissal of the second petition. When addressing services, Louise Strehl of Casework Services4 requested an evaluation before respondent was returned home because of the volatile relationship with his mother. Diehl preferred to bring respondent home and get him help and therapy, "not jail." She stated that respondent "was a little boy who has spent half of his life being abused, and something set him off that weekend, ... [b]ut before that, he had never had an incident." Diehl further stated that although respondent had been opposed to therapy, his time spent at Children's Village caused him to realize the importance of it. The trial court ordered placement to continue at Children's Village with a psychological evaluation to occur within seven days.
On September 1, 2017, a dispositional hearing was conducted on the first petition. At the hearing, respondent's counsel expressed that despite his 40 years of practice, he "was appalled and beyond angry" to learn of "what took place when [respondent] lived with his biological parents." His counsel stated that although respondent had the right to be angry, respondent had learned of the need to find methods to address his anger. Respondent's counsel again asked the prosecutor to consider dropping the second petition but acknowledged "that's a prosecutorial decision." The prosecutor agreed to discuss the second petition but first addressed his reservations regarding the recommendation by Casework Services. Specifically, the prosecutor requested an adjournment of the dispositional hearing to allow the out-of-home screening committee to evaluate the case in light of the prior violence in the home; he also questioned whether Diehl would report the violence if it recurred. Strehl stated that if she felt the case needed to be presented to the committee, she would have done so. Strehl opined that supervising respondent in the community would allow her the opportunity to understand the relationship between him and Diehl, and she would report her concerns to the court and the committee if necessary. With respondent scheduled to start school, Strehl would engage in community monitoring by meeting with the school's social worker and counselor as well as monitor respondent's therapy to learn of signs of trouble in the family home. Respondent's medication had been changed while he was placed in Children's Village, yet he had not required recent physical management there. Strehl credited respondent's lack of physical involvement, noting that Children's Village was a stressful environment and children would incite others to get into trouble.
Diehl also offered that respondent's violent reaction was triggered by his sister who had mentioned that parents could rescind an adoption, causing him to fear it would happen to him. She assured the court that resources, including therapy, were in place to prevent an incident of that magnitude from recurring and that she would comply with any court orders. In response to questioning by the court, respondent indicated that he would deal with anger in a different way, by using a stress ball or coloring, and he now wanted to attend counseling. Respondent stated that Diehl taught him math at a twelfth grade level even though he was only in seventh grade and that he would like to be an engineer. The court adopted the recommendation that respondent be placed on standard probation, attend counseling, attend school, remain on prescription medication, and be released to Diehl. The prosecutor never stated his position on the record regarding the second petition. However, the trial court addressed it by stating, The prosecutor offered to schedule a review on this case on the date scheduled for the trial on the second petition. Further, the prosecutor agreed to provide any video or audio recordings made by the responding police officers to the alleged act of domestic violence that was the subject of the second petition.5
While on probation, a third petition, dated January 19, 2018, was issued, alleging that respondent had committed larceny in a building by stealing money from a school teacher's purse in November 2017. This third petition was authorized after a preliminary-inquiry hearing under MCR 3.932(A).
On January 30, 2018, the hearing commenced with the representation that respondent was prepared to enter a plea of no contest to the domestic-violence offense raised in the second petition, as well as the larceny-in-a-building offense delineated in the third petition. Prior to the taking of the plea, the prosecutor and Strehl discussed the services that should be imposed. Strehl learned from respondent's therapist that he was starting to address the trauma that occurred when he was younger, and the therapist wrote a letter forewarning that respondent might begin to react or act out because of the work occurring in therapy. Consequently, Strehl forwarded the letter to the trial court and recommended intensive probation oversight.
The trial court advised respondent of the consequences of the plea and initially accepted it. However, respondent's counsel asked to approach the bench, and a six-minute sidebar conference occurred off the record.6 After the sidebar, the trial court reconsidered its decision, took respondent's plea "under advisement," and set the matter for review a few months later.
The trial court placed its rationale for rejecting the plea on the record as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Burkman
-
People v. Seay (In re Seay)
... ... App. 420, 426, 613 N.W.2d 348 (2000). Unpreserved issues, however, are reviewed for plain error affecting a party's substantial rights. In re Diehl, Minor , 329 Mich. App. 671, 701, 944 N.W.2d 180 (2019). To avoid forfeiture under the plain-error standard, a petitioner must demonstrate that an ... ...
-
O'Dell v. Singh
...and other proceedings, MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a), [4] and "appellate review is limited to what is presented on appeal." In re D, Minor, 2 329 Mich.App. 671, 680 n 6; 944 N.W.2d 180 (2019). Unless a party has been excused from production of the entire transcript, "a transcript of all proceedings mu......
-
People v. Grant
...made fleeting reference to the victim's concerns about defendant's prospective release and to the reasons the prosecution gave in its 944 N.W.2d 180 brief to reject defendant's motion. But the record is quite clear that the court ultimately made its decision on the basis of its reluctance t......