People v. GR
| Decision Date | 21 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 347023,No. 346418, No. 346596,346418 |
| Citation | 951 N.W.2d 76,331 Mich.App. 58 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GR, Defendant-Appellee. People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AC, Defendant-Appellee. People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DD, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Michael J. Sharkey, Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph D. Shopp and David L. Campbell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the people.
Dustyn K. Coontz for GR and DD.
Bernard A. Jocuns for AC.
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and Borrello and Servitto, JJ.
In these consolidated appeals, the state appeals by leave granted in Docket Nos. 346418 and 346596, and by delayed leave granted in Docket No. 347023, the trial court's orders granting defendants' respective motions to close the proceedings to the public in each case. On appeal, the state argues that the trial court erred when it closed the proceedings to the public because the relevant proceedings were either not actually proceedings conducted under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11 et seq. , or the proceedings were not regarding the disposition of defendants' criminal charges. Alternatively, the state argues that if the proceedings could be closed to the public under MCL 762.14(4), then that provision is unconstitutional as applied in each case. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
Defendants were charged with various offenses stemming from allegations that they were planning to commit a school shooting. Each defendant entered into a plea agreement offered by the state and accepted by the trial court. The trial court sentenced each defendant under HYTA to five years' probation.
Subsequently, pursuant to defendants' motions in the context of their respective probation-review hearings, the trial court ruled that the proceedings would be closed pursuant to HYTA and this Court's decision in People v. Bobek , 217 Mich. App. 524, 553 N.W.2d 18 (1996). The state now challenges this ruling on appeal.
The state first argues that the trial court erred by ordering that the proceedings would be closed to the public.1
"The interpretation and application of a statute presents a question of law that the appellate court reviews de novo." People v. Lewis , 302 Mich. App. 338, 341, 839 N.W.2d 37 (2013). The Legislature's intent, as expressed in the statutory language, controls the interpretation of statutes. Id.
"HYTA is essentially a juvenile diversion program for criminal defendants under the age of 21." People v. Dipiazza , 286 Mich. App. 137, 141, 778 N.W.2d 264 (2009). "An assignment to youthful trainee status does not constitute a conviction of a crime unless the court revokes the defendant's status as a youthful trainee." Id. ; see also MCL 762.12 ; MCL 762.14. "If the defendant's status is not revoked and the defendant successfully completes his or her assignment as a youthful trainee, the court ‘shall discharge the individual and dismiss the proceedings.’ " Dipiazza , 286 Mich. App. at 142, 778 N.W.2d 264, quoting MCL 762.14(1). MCL 762.14(2) provides that "except as provided in subsection (3), [which is a subsection that is not implicated in this case,] the individual assigned to the status of youthful trainee shall not suffer a civil disability or loss of right or privilege following his or her release from that status because of his or her assignment as a youthful trainee." "Once compliance is achieved, a youthful trainee will not be deemed convicted of a crime and proceedings regarding the disposition of the criminal charge will be closed to public inspection." Bobek , 217 Mich. App. at 529, 553 N.W.2d 18. HYTA "is a remedial statute and should be construed liberally for the advancement of the remedy." Id.
At issue in this appeal is MCL 762.14(4), which is the provision of HYTA concerning proceedings that are closed to public inspection. MCL 762.14(4) provides as follows:
Unless the court enters a judgment of conviction against the individual for the criminal offense under [ MCL 762.12 ], all proceedings regarding the disposition of the criminal charge and the individual's assignment as youthful trainee shall be closed to public inspection, but shall be open to the courts of this state, the department of corrections, the family independence agency, law enforcement personnel and, beginning January 1, 2005, prosecuting attorneys for use only in the performance of their duties.
The state argues that this provision should be "interpreted to only close proceedings from public view after the individual has successfully completed the terms of their sentence and been discharged from youthful trainee status." Applying this analysis, the state argues that the trial court therefore erred by entering the order closing the proceedings during the course of defendants' probation-review hearings and while defendants were still serving their sentences of probation. However, the state's argument is at odds with this Court's holding in Bobek , 217 Mich. App. at 528-530, 553 N.W.2d 18, wherein we stated that MCL 762.14(4) means that all matters and hearings brought before the court in a case after the defendant had been assigned youthful-trainee status are to be closed to the public. The Bobek Court reasoned as follows:
[T]he term "proceeding" apparently encompasses all matters brought before a court in a specific judicial action. When a hearing is conducted after the grant of youthful trainee status, closure of the hearing would be necessary to enforce the confidentiality provision of the act. Thus, it appears that the Legislature envisaged the term "all proceedings" as meaning all matters brought before a court in an action in which youthful trainee status has been granted. [ Bobek , 217 Mich. App. at 530, 553 N.W.2d 18.]
In this case, the trial court granted defendants youthful-trainee status at defendants' sentencing hearings on March 1, 2018. Accordingly, the probation-review hearings at issue, which occurred in August 2018, are considered proceedings that must be closed to the public pursuant to MCL 762.14(4), and the trial court did not err by closing these matters to the public. Bobek , 217 Mich. App. at 530, 553 N.W.2d 18.
Nonetheless, the state further contends that the probation-review hearings were not required to be closed to the public under MCL 762.14(4) because they were not "proceedings regarding the disposition of the criminal charge...." (Emphasis added.) The State argues that "disposition" of the criminal charge refers to the end of the case when the individual is released from youthful-trainee status and the proceedings are dismissed. See MCL 762.14(1) ().
However, this argument is unpersuasive. Review of the statutory language reveals no indication that the mandate in MCL 762.14(1) to "discharge the individual and dismiss the proceedings" once the individual is released from youthful-trainee status also serves to define the term "disposition" in MCL 762.14(4). Rather, this term is part of the phrase that this Court has determined refers broadly to all hearings in the matter after youthful-trainee status has been granted so as to effectively "enforce the confidentiality provision of the act." Bobek , 217 Mich. App. at 530, 553 N.W.2d 18. Moreover, the probation-review hearings necessarily related to defendants' "assignment as youthful trainee[s]" because defendants were sentenced to probation after the trial court granted defendants youthful-trainee status. Thus, the hearings were "proceedings regarding ... the individual[s'] assignment as youthful trainee[s]," and under the plain language of the statute, the trial court did not err by closing the proceedings to the public. MCL 762.14(4) ; Bobek , 217 Mich. App. at 530, 553 N.W.2d 18.
The state additionally argues that MCL 762.14(4) does not apply in this case and that the trial court therefore did not have the authority to close the proceedings, because the probation-review hearings were actually conducted under MCL 803.223 and MCR 6.935 rather than under HYTA. MCL 803.223 provides as follows:
If a juvenile is committed to a juvenile facility, the department or county juvenile agency, as applicable, shall prepare for the court that committed the juvenile an annual report stating the services being provided to the juvenile, where the juvenile has been placed, and the juvenile's progress in that placement.
MCR 6.935 provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burkman
...to be constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is plainly apparent, and when possible, the statute is to be construed as constitutional. Id. "The burden is on the party challenging the statute's constitutionality to prove its invalidity." Id. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging......
-
United States v. Thompkins
...law, his assignment to youthful trainee status did not become a "conviction" until the court revoked that status. See People v. GR, 3 951 N.W.2d 76, 79 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). Because the state court did not revoke his youthful trainee status until after he committed his federal offenses, Th......