People v. Shelton
| Decision Date | 01 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 66974 |
| Citation | 412 Mich. 565,315 N.W.2d 537 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oddie SHELTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Oddie Shelton, in pro. per.
The issue in this case is whether our decision in People v. Fountain, 407 Mich. 96, 282 N.W.2d 168 (1979), requires that a prosecutor who intends to file a supplemental information charging a defendant with being an habitual offender must do so at the same time at which the information on the underlying felony is filed or must only proceed "promptly" to do so. We hold that a prosecutor must proceed "promptly" to file the supplemental information and we define the term "promptly" to mean that the prosecutor must file the supplemental information, if at all, not more than 14 days after the defendant is arraigned in circuit court (or has waived arraignment) on the information charging the underlying felony, or before trial if the defendant is tried within that 14-day period.
The defendant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny 1 in an information filed on February 15, 1979. In addition, on the first day of trial, 2 just prior to the selection of the jury, the prosecutor filed a supplemental information charging the defendant with being an habitual offender. 3
The jury convicted the defendant of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. The defendant was immediately thereafter arraigned on the supplemental information in which he was charged with having committed two prior felonies. A bench trial was conducted and the defendant was found guilty as charged. On June 14, 1979, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 5 to 20 years in prison.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. He contended that this Court's decision in Fountain required that the prosecutor file the supplemental information at the same time as he filed the information charging the underlying felony. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
In Fountain we stated:
"A prosecutor who knows a person has a prior felony record must promptly proceed, if at all, against the person as an habitual offender. People v. Hatt, 384 Mich. 302; 181 N.W.2d 912 (1970), People v. Stratton, 13 Mich.App. 350; 164 N.W.2d 555 (1968). The prosecutor is not foreclosed from proceeding against a person as an habitual offender after conviction on the current offense provided he is unaware of a prior felony record until after conviction. M.C.L. § 769.13; M.S.A. § 28.1085. The only recognized exception to this rule is when the delay is due to the need to verify out-of-state felony convictions based on the 'rap sheet'. People v. Hendrick, 398 Mich. 410; 247 N.W.2d 840 (1976).
407 Mich. 98-99, 282 N.W.2d 168.
The Court of Appeals has split 4 on the question whether Fountain requires "simultaneous" filing or "prompt" filing of the supplemental information, and those panels opting for the latter standard have found various factual situations to constitute "prompt" filing.
Our decision in Fountain requires that prosecutors "must promptly proceed, if at all, against the person as an habitual offender". While the simultaneous filing of both the information charging the underlying offense and the supplemental information obviously provides the greatest possible notice to the defendant, we decline to require a simultaneous filing.
We must still decide whether the prosecutor in this case proceeded "promptly" to file the supplemental information. The purpose of requiring a prosecutor to proceed "promptly" to file the supplemental information is to provide the accused with notice, at an early stage in the proceedings, of the potential consequences should the accused be convicted of the underlying offense. We conclude that a standard which would find a filing on the day of trial to suffice is an inadequate one. We recognize that any "rule" which we might establish is subject to the criticism that it is arbitrary. However, we believe that the imposition of a "rule" is preferable to the ad hoc decision-making which has been the practice heretofore.
Accordingly, we hold that a supplemental information is filed "promptly" if it is filed not more than 14 days after the defendant is arraigned in circuit court (or has waived arraignment) on the information charging the underlying felony, or before trial if the defendant is tried within that 14-day period. We believe that such a rule allows the prosecutor sufficient time to make a decision concerning supplementation while at the same time providing notice at an early stage of the proceedings to the defendant of the potential consequences of conviction of the underlying felony.
We further note that, as we said in Fountain:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Eason
......237] is unaware of any prior felony record until after conviction or the delay in filing the information is due to the need to verify out-of-state felony convictions based on the record of a defendant's prior arrests. People v. Shelton, 412 Mich. 565, 315 N.W.2d 537 (1982), reh. den. 413 Mich. 1108 (1982). As these exceptions were not applicable, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing 12 solely on defendant's charge of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. . The ......
-
People v. McGill
...... We find a two-day delay between the filing of informations to fall within the requirements for prompt filing of a supplemental information. See People v. Fountain, 407 Mich. 96, 282 N.W.2d 168 (1979). Although People v. Shelton, 412 Mich. 565, 315 N.W.2d 537 (1982), which defines "promptly" to mean generally not more than 14 days after a defendant's arraignment in circuit court on the underlying felony, had not been decided at the time of defendant's arraignment or trial, we find its logic persuasive. At any rate, we do ......
-
People v. Hays
...... Defendant admits that the prosecutor filed the information within fourteen days of his arraignment on the underlying offense as required by People v. Shelton, 412 Mich. 565, 315 N.W.2d 537 (1982), reh. den. 413 Mich. 1108 (1982), but claims that because he did not receive actual notice of the filing, reversal is required. 1 Analysis of this issue must begin with People v. Fountain, 407 Mich. 96, 282 N.W.2d 168 (1979), reh. den. 407 Mich. 1152 (1979), ......
-
People v. Morales
...... Marshall, supra . The only limitation on after-filing was that it must be "prompt." The fundamentals of this approach were not altered by the narrow holding of Hendrick. . The new approach was further solidified in People v. Shelton, 412 Mich. 565, 315 N.W.2d 537 (1982) . The defendant in Shelton had been convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. 11 On the first day of trial, the prosecutor had filed an habitual offender supplemental information. Id. at 567, 315 618 N.W.2d 16 N.W.2d 537. After ......