People v. Metamora Water Service

• Decision Date: 02 August 2007
• Docket Number: Docket No. 268346.
• Citation: 276 Mich. App. 376,741 N.W.2d 61
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METAMORA WATER SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

741 N.W.2d 61

276 Mich. App. 376

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METAMORA WATER SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 268346.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 5, 2007, at Detroit.

Decided August 2, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication October 26, 2007.

Michael J. Sharkey, Lapeer, for the defendant.

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Byron J. Konschuh, Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas H. Sparrow, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Before: BANDSTRA, P.J., and ZAHRA and FORT HOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The prosecution appeals by leave granted the circuit court's order denying the prosecution leave to appeal a decision of the district court. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On May 23, 2005, at 5:30 p.m., a truck driven by a representative of defendant, Metamora Water Service, Inc., was ticketed by Michigan State Police Officer Jeff Boller for failing to have a valid Michigan registration, in violation of MCL 257.255. However, defendant alleged that it was not required to register the vehicle because of the statutory exemption for special mobile equipment found in MCL 257.62 and 257.216(d). The parties briefed the issue of the applicability of the statutory exemption and submitted the following stipulated facts to the district court:

1. Metamora Water Service is lawfully engaged in the business of drilling and repairing commercial and residential wells.

2. In the course of it's [sic] lawful business Metamora Water Service operates vehicles which are commonly known as "Water Trucks", three representative photographs of which are attached hereto as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.

3. Metamora Water Service uses its Water Trucks for the purpose of transporting water to the sites of its well operations.

4. Metamora Water Service uses its Water Trucks on a daily, or semi-daily basis, in the course of transporting water to the sites of its well operations.

5. Metamora Water Service operates its Water Trucks on any and all roads and or highways open to the public in Lapeer County.

6. Metamora Water Service loads additional material and equipment on its Water Trucks in the course of transporting water to the sites of its well operations.

7. The additional material and equipment which Metamora Water Service loads on its Water Trucks is well pipe, grout, and electrical generators.

8. The additional material and equipment which Metamora Water Service loads on its Water Trucks in [sic] used in the course of Metamora Water Service's well operations.

On August 22, 2005, the district court heard oral arguments regarding defendant's motion to dismiss the citation. The prosecutor argued that the case was submitted on stipulated facts and that the facts revealed that defendant violated state law by failing to license its water trucks. He asserted that the application of caselaw from the Michigan Supreme Court to the factual situation at hand revealed that the dispatch of defendant's vehicles over the highways in the course of the performance of its work required the vehicles to be licensed. The defense asserted that the vehicles were not licensed, did not need to be licensed because of the policy directives of the Secretary of State, and did not have plates.¹ Defendant submitted a decision rendered by a district judge in another county to support its position that licensing was not required.

The prosecutor acknowledged the district court decision, but stated that, according to representatives of the state police, that court was located in the only county in the state of Michigan that did not enforce the statute at issue. The prosecutor continued to assert that published Michigan caselaw, as applied to the stipulated facts, revealed that defendant's trucks did not satisfy the exemption requirements and, therefore, must be registered with the state. The district court did not address the Michigan Supreme Court decision cited and held:

Looking at the Exhibits that were put with a motion, they do look like trucks. They're huge. The bed of them is specially constructed to carry a lot of water that is used in the well drilling process.

But . . . I've got to look at what has been decided before me in this State. I've looked at the Attorney General's Opinions, and I'm looking at the District Court Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss from back in 1995. That case is right on point with respect to what I've got in front of me. And unless I see something in the future from the Attorney General or something from the Legislature that specifically says that the water tank [sic] need[s] to be registered, along with other commercial trucks, I'd be more than happy to enforce it at that point in time. But based on what I've got in front of me I've got to grant [defendant's] Motion to Dismiss.

So you bring me something else from the [Attorney General's] office and let our local well drillers know what's happening, no problem here. But, I've got to go with what we have. And without something specific from the Attorney General's Office or something from the Legislature helping me out here, I'm granting the Motion to Dismiss.

The prosecution filed an application for leave to appeal in the circuit court. The prosecution filed a brief with the application that contained the following statement of the issue:

SHOULD THE DECISION OF THE 71-A DISTRICT COURT BE REVERSED, WHEN THE DECISION RELIED ON AN ERRONEOUS OPINION FROM THE 88th DISTRICT COURT, AND THE DEFENDANT'S WATER TRUCKS DO NOT MEET THE GENERAL DEFINITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIAL MOBILE EQUIPMENT?

Defendant filed a brief in opposition, asserting that the claimed error presented to the circuit court was not raised before the district court and, therefore, should not be considered by the circuit court on appeal. After hearing oral argument regarding the application for leave to appeal, the circuit court ruled:

On May 23, 2005 Defendant/Appellee Metamora Water Services was cited for operating it's [sic] well drilling water truck on Lake Nepessing Road in Lapeer, Michigan without a valid registration plate. The People of the State of Michigan argue that the water truck does not fall under the exempt status because Metamora Water Services, Incorporated transports to construction sites well pipe, grout and an electrical generator on its water truck.

The Defendant contested the ticket on the ground that it's [sic] water truck constitutes special mobile equipment under MCL 257.62, which states in pertinent part "Special mobile equipment means every vehicle not designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or property and incidentally operated or moved over the highways including farm tractors, road construction or maintenance machinery, mobile office trailers, mobile tool shed trailers, mobile trailer units used for housing stationary construction equipment, ditch digging apparatus and well boring and well servicing apparatus. The foregoing enumeration shall be considered partial and shall not operate to exclude other vehicles which are within the general terms of this definition. Although not within the general terms of this definition, the combination of a mobile car crusher, trailer permanently attached to a truck tractor or road tracker shall be considered special mobile equipment for purposes of this act."

On August 25, 2005 a hearing was conducted in the District Court which dismissed the ticket based on a 1995 opinion from the 88th District Court for Alpena, Michigan where the Court concluded that water trucks are special mobile equipment and stated in pertinent part the three tests enumerated need only be applied when a vehicle is not specifically . . . classified as a special mobile equipment under MCL 257.62— and that's the People v. Pure [W]ater Well Drilling opinion.

The question that the Plaintiff/Appellant asked this Court to review was not asked and reviewed in the District Court; in particular, whether the District Court relied on an erroneous opinion from the 88th District Court and that the Defendant's water trucks do not meet the general definition requirements of special mobile equipment.

MCR 7.101(A)(3) limits an appeal to questions presented to the lower Court first before the decision of the lower Court can be reviewed by the appellate Court. It was held in People v. Wetstone [sic] 119 Mich.App. 546, 326 N.W.2d 552, among many, that a claim on appeal which was not raised in trial cannot be considered in the appellate court unless a clear injustice is demonstrated.

The Court finds that not applicable hear [sic]; hence, the appeal is considered and denied.

We granted the prosecution's application for leave to appeal.

The prosecution first alleges that the circuit court erred in denying leave to appeal. We agree. For an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be raised, addressed, and decided by the lower court. Hines v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 265 Mich.App. 432, 443, 695 N.W.2d 84 (2005). However, when the lower court record contains all the facts necessary to resolve an issue, the appellate court may nonetheless decide an issue not decided by the trial court. Id. at 443-444, 695 N.W.2d 84. In the present case, the parties questioned the applicability of statutory law to a stipulation of facts. In the context of raising the issue before the trial court, MCL 257.62 was discussed. The prosecutor also raised the question of binding precedent set forth in a Michigan Supreme Court decision. In contrast, the defense asserted that the exemption applied and cited the opinion of a different district judge that did not constitute binding precedent. See People v. Hunt, 171 Mich.App. 174, 180, 429 N.W.2d 824 (1988) (stating that a court is not bound by a decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, but must follow the published decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court). In response, the...