People v. Fields

Decision Date15 February 1971
Docket NumberNo. 2,Docket No. 6927,2
Citation30 Mich.App. 390,186 N.W.2d 15
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew B. FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Clan Crawford, Jr., Ann Arbor, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William F. Delhey, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BRONSON, P.J., and FITZGERALD, and CHURCHILL *, JJ.

BRONSON, Presiding Judge.

In 1968, the defendant, who was 16 years old, was charged with breaking and entering and uttering and publishing. The defendant had a substantial juvenile court record and the prosecutor petitioned the probate court to waive jurisdiction on both matters to the circuit court. Following a hearing on the matter, an order was entered by the probate court waiving jurisdiction to the circuit court as to both charges. The defendant, represented by counsel, appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the prior order issued by the probate court.

The sole issue on appeal is whether M.C.L.A. § 712A.4 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27.3178(598.4)) 1 is invalid because it fails to set standards for determining whether or not the probate court should waive jurisdiction. 2 The defendant, citing Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, contends that the waiver statute under consideration is unconstitutional because it fails to contain a set of standards in determining the waiver issue. We disagree.

Defendant's reliance upon the Kent decision as authority for his position is unfounded. Although the Kent decision enunciated certain standards which must be met in order to satisfy the requirements of due process and fairness, the Court did not hold that a statute which failed to enumerate the standards is constitutionally defective.

The Court in Kent reversed a criminal conviction on the ground that the waiver of the juvenile for trial in criminal court was invalid, because the waiver procedure failed to satisfy constitutional requirements:

* * * (W)e conclude that, as a condition to a valid waiver order, petitioner was entitled to a hearing, including access by his counsel to the social records and probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons for the Juvenile Court's decision. We believe that this result is required by the statute read in the context of constitutional principles relating to due process and the assistance of counsel.'

The Court, in Kent, did not hold that the statute was unconstitutional, but rather held that the procedure by which the waiver was obtained failed to satisfy constitutional principles relating to due process and the assistance of counsel. In the instant case, however, the record reveals that the defendant was provided a hearing as well as the assistance of counsel. The defendant's counsel was given notice of the hearing and provided access to all necessary records. The court listed reasons in support of its decision to grant waiver. The standards enumerated in the Kent decision were fully satisfied in the instant case.

After a careful review of the record, we are of the opinion that the waiver proceedings in the instant case were in accord with the basic requirements of due process and fairness, as well as our juvenile court act. See People v. Coleman (1969), 19 Mich.App. 250...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Fields
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 1974
    ...to be tried as adults, was not unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals, upon remand from this Court, upheld this decision. 30 Mich.App. 390, 186 N.W.2d 15 (1971). This Court granted leave and entered a decision reversing these lower courts. 388 Mich. 66, 199 N.W.2d 217 (1972). Rehearing was ......
  • State v. Gibbs
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 3 Agosto 1972
    ...their faces in Lewis v. State, 86 Nev. 889, 478 P.2d 168 (1970); State v. Doyal, 59 N.M. 454, 286 P.2d 306 (1955); People v. Fields, 30 Mich.App. 390, 186 N.W.2d 15 (1971); In re Correia, supra.33 383 U.S., at 561, 86 S.Ct. at 1057.34 See Knott v. Langlois, 102 R.I. 517, 231 A.2d 767 (R.I.1......
  • People v. Fields
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 26 Julio 1972
    ...for a determination as on grant by that court of defendant's application for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals (30 Mich.App. 390, p. 392, 186 N.W.2d 15, p. 16) held 'Although the Kent decision (Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84) enunciated certain standar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT