People v. Loukas

• Decision Date: 03 March 1981
• Docket Number: Docket No. 48081
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Andrew LOUKAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. 104 Mich.App. 204, 304 N.W.2d 532
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 532

304 N.W.2d 532

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Andrew LOUKAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 48081.

104 Mich.App. 204, 304 N.W.2d 532

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 3, 1981.

Released for Publication April 30, 1981.

[104 MICHAPP 205] James D. O'Connell, Highland Park, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., L. Brooks Patterson, Pros. Atty., Robert C. Williams, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., David A. King, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KELLY, P. J., and ALLEN and HORN, ^* JJ.

HORN, Judge.

Defendant, Edward Andrew Loukas, Jr., was charged in a single information with one count of reckless driving, contrary to M.C.L. § 257.626; M.S.A. § 9.2326, and one count of resisting arrest, contrary to M.C.L. § 750.479; M.S.A. § 28.747. After a preliminary examination, defendant was bound over on both charges. Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, the charge of reckless driving was dropped and one count of careless driving, M.C.L. § 257.626b; M.S.A. § 9.2326(2), was added. Defendant then pled nolo contendere to resisting arrest [104 MICHAPP 206] and careless driving in the Oakland County Circuit Court.

The circumstances surrounding the alleged offenses are as follows. On November 29, 1978, at approximately 2:00 a. m., state police troopers observed defendant traveling south at an excessive rate of speed on Telegraph Road in the City of Southfield Oakland County, near the intersection of Ten Mile Road. The officers gave chase, accelerating their vehicle to 110 miles per hour, but defendant's vehicle continued to pull away. As the officers approached the intersection of Telegraph Road and Nine Mile Road, they observed defendant momentarily slow down and then proceed through the intersection at a high rate of speed against a steady red light. The officers continued their chase on Telegraph Road across Eight Mile Road and into the City of Detroit. They were finally able to stop defendant's vehicle in a gasoline station parking area after he was forced to stop at the intersection of Telegraph Road and Seven Mile Road because all southbound lanes of Telegraph Road were occupied by vehicles stopped for a red light.

Defendant argues that his nolo contendere plea was invalid because the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to take a plea which joins a felony count and a misdemeanor count. The charge of resisting arrest, because it is a felony, could be tried only in circuit court. M.C.L. § 600.601; M.S.A. 27A.601, People v. West, 54 Mich.App. 527, 530, 221 N.W.2d 179 (1974). The jurisdiction of district courts over misdemeanors is described in M.C.L. § 600.8311; M.S.A. § 27A.8311 as follows:

"The district court shall have jurisdiction of:

"(a) Misdemeanors punishable by fine or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year, or both."

[104 MICHAPP 207] Defendant argues that § 8311 required that the misdemeanor charge of reckless driving be brought in district court rather than joined with a felony charge in circuit court.

However, § 8311 does not provide that the district court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all misdemeanors, nor does it prohibit the circuit court from exercising concurrent jurisdiction over certain misdemeanors where the circumstances so warrant. Since the misdemeanor charge of reckless driving in this case arose out of the same conduct and involved the same sequence of events as the felony charge, it was properly joined with the felony at the circuit court level.

The Michigan Constitution of 1963, Art. 6, § 13, provides that the "circuit court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law * * *." Circuit courts are therefore presumed to have jurisdiction unless the matter in question is specifically excluded by law. In light of the fact that circuit court jurisdiction over certain misdemeanors is not expressly prohibited, it has been held that in appropriate circumstances a misdemeanor should be joined with a related felony offense in circuit court under the statute providing concurrent jurisdiction with the district court. See, M.C.L. § 767.1; M.S.A. § 28.941; People v. Winford, 404 Mich. 400, 408 n.11, 273 N.W.2d 54 (1978). Accordingly, we hold that, in a case such as the case at bar, a misdemeanor violation of state law may be properly joined with a felony violation in circuit court. This however, is subject...