People v. Hawkins, Docket No. 116268

CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation181 Mich.App. 393,448 N.W.2d 858
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee Wilbur HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellee.
Decision Date21 November 1989
Docket NumberDocket No. 116268

Page 858

448 N.W.2d 858
181 Mich.App. 393
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lee Wilbur HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 116268.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Submitted Oct. 3, 1989.
Decided Dec. 5, 1989.
Released for Publication Nov. 21, 1989.

Page 859

[181 Mich.App. 394] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Wesley J. Nykamp, Pros. Atty., and Gregory J. Babbitt, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Persinger & Farmer, P.C. by Floyd H. Farmer, Jr., Holland, for defendant-appellee.

Before WAHLS, P.J., and GRIBBS and BURNS, * JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On remand from our Supreme Court, 432 Mich. 880, 436 N.W.2d 665 (1989), the prosecution appeals a July 7, 1988, opinion of the Ottawa Circuit Court and subsequent order remanding the case to the 58th District Court.

Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of M.C.L. Sec. 257.625; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2325. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges in district court on the basis that the parking lot where he was arrested was [181 Mich.App. 395] private property and not open to the public and, accordingly, not within the statute.

Tim Raha, a deputy sheriff for the Ottawa County Sheriff's Department, testified that on November 10, 1986, at about 12:20 a.m., he observed defendant driving in the parking lot of Leppink's Shopping Center in Ferrysburg, Michigan. Raha eventually arrested defendant for suspicion of operating a vehicle while under the influence of liquor. Officer Raha testified that there were no signs posted indicating that the parking lot was available for parking by the general public and that there were no businesses open in the shopping center.

John Leppink, the manager of Leppink's Supermarket, testified that there is an easement across the parking lot that is used as an entrance and exit for a condominium development behind the shopping center. Mr. Leppink also testified that there are vending machines and newspaper boxes located outside the stores, which are available for use anytime, night or day. There are no signs posted restricting the use of the parking lot and he allows car pool use, as well as truck drivers and their trucks to park in the lot overnight.

The district court found that the parking lot was open to the public as contemplated by the statute, and defendant's motion was dismissed.

Defendant appealed to the circuit court under MCR 7.103. The Ottawa Circuit Court judge issued an opinion in which he concluded that if defendant was driving on the easement portion of the parking lot his behavior was in violation of the statute. If defendant was only driving on that other portion of the parking lot intended to service only the business invitees and licensees of the businesses, his behavior was not proscribed by statute. The [181 Mich.App. 396] matter was

Page 860

remanded to district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Thereafter, the prosecution applied for leave to appeal to this Court, which was denied. The prosecution then applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In lieu of granting leave, the Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court for consideration as on leave granted. 432 Mich. 880, 436 N.W.2d 665 (1989).

The prosecution claims that the circuit court erred in ruling that the parking lot where defendant was arrested was not a place open to the public. We agree.

The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. People v. Einset, 158 Mich.App. 608, 611, 405 N.W.2d 123 (1987), lv. den. 428 Mich. 893 (1987). The first criterion is the specific language of the statute. Id.

M.C.L. Sec. 257.625(1); M.S.A. Sec. 9.2325(1) provides, in pertinent part:

A person, whether licensed or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • People v. Troncoso, Docket No. 115976
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • March 4, 1991
    ...construction of [187 MICHAPP 573] statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 396, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989). The role of the judiciary is to construe statutes as intended by the Legislature, not to rewrite them. Lapeer Co. De......
  • Guardian Industries Corp. v. Department of Treasury, Docket Nos. 119601
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • March 1, 1993
    ...7.558(77). When we seek to determine the intent of the Legislature, we first examine the specific language used. People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 396, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989). The Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed. Frasier v. Model Coverall Service......
  • BENEVOLENT AND PROTECT. ORDER OF ELKS v. Reynolds, No. 1:93-CV-407.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • September 23, 1994
    ...F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir.1989). B. Courts reasonably interpret statutes to effectuate the intent of legislatures. People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989); Department of Social Services v. Brewer, 180 Mich.App. 82, 446 N.W.2d 593 (1989). Courts examine the plain and speci......
  • People v. Tracy, Docket No. 123393
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • December 17, 1990
    ...interpretation of [186 Mich.App. 175] statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 396, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989); Joy Management Co. v. Detroit, 176 Mich.App. 722, 730, 440 N.W.2d 654 (1989), lv. den. 433 Mich. 860 (1989). The......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • People v. Troncoso, Docket No. 115976
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • March 4, 1991
    ...construction of [187 MICHAPP 573] statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 396, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989). The role of the judiciary is to construe statutes as intended by the Legislature, not to rewrite them. Lapeer Co. De......
  • Guardian Industries Corp. v. Department of Treasury, Docket Nos. 119601
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • March 1, 1993
    ...7.558(77). When we seek to determine the intent of the Legislature, we first examine the specific language used. People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 396, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989). The Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed. Frasier v. Model Coverall Service......
  • BENEVOLENT AND PROTECT. ORDER OF ELKS v. Reynolds, No. 1:93-CV-407.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • September 23, 1994
    ...F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir.1989). B. Courts reasonably interpret statutes to effectuate the intent of legislatures. People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989); Department of Social Services v. Brewer, 180 Mich.App. 82, 446 N.W.2d 593 (1989). Courts examine the plain and speci......
  • People v. Tracy, Docket No. 123393
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • December 17, 1990
    ...interpretation of [186 Mich.App. 175] statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 396, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989); Joy Management Co. v. Detroit, 176 Mich.App. 722, 730, 440 N.W.2d 654 (1989), lv. den. 433 Mich. 860 (1989). The......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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