People v. George
| Decision Date | 14 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 58627,58627 |
| Citation | 399 Mich. 638,250 N.W.2d 491 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nolan Ray GEORGE, Defendant-Appellee. 399 Mich. 638, 250 N.W.2d 491 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Marvin S. Shwedel, Farmington, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas S. Richards, Pontiac, for defendant-appellee.
Defendant's interlocutory 'motion to determine trial court jurisdiction' raises the question of whether Oakland Circuit Court has jurisdiction, at this time, to re-try him. We hold that it does not and issue this opinion, in lieu of an order, because there appears to be a persistent and general lack of understanding of how and when an opinion of the Court of Appeals becomes effective for the purposes of execution or enforcement.
The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder in Oakland Circuit Court on May 15, 1974. Appeal by the defendant was timely taken to the Court of Appeals and on June 14, 1976 that Court issued its opinion which concluded with the words, 'Reversed and remanded.' 69 Mich.App. 403, 245 N.W.2d 65. On July 2, 1976 the plaintiff filed an application for leave to appeal with this Court. The application to this Court was timely, having been filed within 20 days of the issuance of the Court of Appeals opinion. See GCR 1963, 853.2(1). That application to this Court has been neither denied nor granted and therefore remains pending before this Court.
The clerk of the Court of Appeals was obliged to Enter an order pursuant to the June 14, 1976 opinion of that Court, 'forthwith upon filing of the opinion,' GCR 1963, 821.2. He has done so. That order, dated June 14, 1976 is in the original file of the Court of Appeals which is now in the possession of this Court. The clerk of the Court of Appeals was also obliged to send Notice to counsel for each party of Entry of that order of the Court of Appeals. GCR 1963, 853.2(1). That judgment order has Not been Issued because a timely application for leave to appeal from the judgment order of the Court of Appeals was filed with this Court by the plaintiff-appellant and has not yet been resolved by this Court. Nevertheless, a day was set for a new trial in circuit court. With trial ready to commence, the circuit judge noticed that final process had not issued from the Court of Appeals, and he adjourned the trial. Defendant's motion in this Court followed.
Under GCR 1963, 802.1, jurisdiction of this case was vested in the Court of Appeals, and thus removed from the circuit court, when the defendant's claim of appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals on June 26, 1974. Until the pending application for leave to appeal is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. White, Docket No. 241414
...from a decision of the Court of Appeals effectively stays the Court of Appeals decision as a final adjudication, see People v. George, 399 Mich. 638, 250 N.W.2d 491 (1977), and denies it precedential force until denial of the application for leave to appeal in this Court or some other dispo......
-
People v. Washington
...answered this question under the former court rules when it encountered an error similar to the present one in People v George , 399 Mich. 638, 640, 250 N.W.2d 491 (1977). Therein, the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to retry him while the prosecutor's application f......
-
Tebo v. Havlik
...considered a "deviant" decision. It was uncontradicted.1 People v. Phillips, 416 Mich. 63, 74, 330 N.W.2d 366 (1982); People v. George, 399 Mich. 638, 250 N.W.2d 491 (1977), explicate the niceties of the point at which an intermediate appellate court judgment is final, binding, and preceden......
-
People v. Washington
...appeal to the Supreme Court, or, if such an application is filed, after the disposition of the case by the Supreme Court. 2. People v George, 399 Mich. 638 (1977), the outcome of the case. Analyzing former court rule GCR 1963, 802.1, the George Court concluded that the circuit court had l......