People v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 21 June 2016
• Docket Number: 330499.,Docket Nos. 330497
• Citation: 316 Mich.App. 52,890 N.W.2d 891
• Parties: PEOPLE v. TAYLOR. People v. Watkins.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

316 Mich.App. 52

890 N.W.2d 891

PEOPLE

v.TAYLOR.

People

v.Watkins.

Docket Nos. 330497

330499.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 9, 2016, at Detroit.

Decided June 21, 2016, 9:00 a.m.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, Jason W. Williams, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and David A. McCreedy, Lead Appellate Attorney, for the people.

Law Offices of David S. Steingold, PLLC, Detroit (by David S. Steingold ), for Robbie D. Taylor.

David Cripps for Edward L. Watkins.

Before: MURPHY, P.J., and SAAD and BORRELLO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated interlocutory appeals from the same lower court file, the prosecutor appeals an order that sought to remand the case to the 36th District Court for a continued preliminary examination. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The prosecutor argues that the circuit court erred when it remanded the case to the district court. We agree. This Court reviews de novo questions of law, including jurisdictional issues. People v. Laws, 218 Mich.App. 447, 451, 554 N.W.2d 586 (1996).

"Where a criminal prosecution is initiated by the filing of an information rather than by indictment, the accused has a statutory right to a preliminary examination."

People v. McGee, 258 Mich.App. 683, 695, 672 N.W.2d 191 (2003), citing MCL 766.1. The district court is vested with jurisdiction to conduct preliminary examinations in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court. MCL 600.8311(e). "If, after considering the evidence, the court determines that probable cause exists to believe both that an offense not cognizable by the district court has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the court must bind the defendant over for trial." MCR 6.110(E) ; see also MCL 766.13. "The magistrate's bindover to the circuit court, after a preliminary examination or a defendant's waiver of an examination, authorizes the prosecutor to file an information. Indeed, it is the filing of the magistrate's return, following an examination or waiver by the defendant, that confers jurisdiction on the circuit court." McGee, 258 Mich.App. at 695, 672 N.W.2d 191 (citations omitted). And just as the filing of the magistrate's return confers jurisdiction on the circuit court, id., it has the effect of divesting the district court of jurisdiction, People v. Sherrod, 32 Mich.App. 183, 186, 188 N.W.2d 221 (1971).

Once a criminal case has been bound over and jurisdiction has been vested in the circuit court, there are only limited circumstances in which the circuit court may properly remand the case for a new or continued preliminary examination. If a motion to quash is filed and the circuit court determines that the evidence is insufficient to support the bindover, the circuit court is permitted to remand the case for a further examination at which the prosecutor may seek to remedy the shortcoming in the proofs needed to establish probable cause. See People v. Miklovich, 375 Mich. 536, 538–539, 134 N.W.2d 720 (1965) ; People v. Salazar, 124 Mich.App. 249, 251–252, 333 N.W.2d 567 (1983). Further, a circuit court may remand the case if the defendant waived the right to a preliminary examination and a defect in the waiver exists (for example, if the waiver was made without the benefit of counsel). See People v. Reedy, 151 Mich.App. 143, 147, 390 N.W.2d 215 (1986) ; People v. Skowronek, 57 Mich.App. 110, 113, 226 N.W.2d 74 (1975). The circuit court may also remand the case if the prosecutor adds a new charge on which the defendant did not have a preliminary examination. See People v. Iaconis, 29 Mich.App. 443, 463, 185 N.W.2d 609 (1971), aff'd sub nom, People v. Bercheny, 387 Mich. 431, 434, 196 N.W.2d 767 (1972) ;¹ MCR 6.110(H) (permitting the circuit court to remand the case if there was a violation of certain rules governing the conduct of the preliminary examination or the probable cause determination).

In this case, a preliminary examination was held, and the district court elaborated in detail its findings that probable cause existed and bound defendants over for trial. The magistrate's return to the circuit court was then filed, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the circuit court, McGee, 258 Mich.App. at 695, 672 N.W.2d 191, and divesting the district court of jurisdiction, Sherrod, 32 Mich.App. at 186, 188 N.W.2d 221. In the circuit court, defendants moved to quash the information, and the circuit court denied the motions to quash and concluded that reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at the preliminary examination supported the magistrate's probable cause determination. Both defendants then moved to remand the case to the district court for a further preliminary examination on the ground that a Michigan State Police ballistics report prepared after the preliminary examination showed that at least three guns were used during the incident for which defendants were charged. Defendants contended that the ballistics report could have been used to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, including witness Terry Williams, who testified that he heard only one gun fired during the incident. Defendants further asserted that the ballistics report supported their theory that it was impossible for defendant Edward Lee Watkins to have fired the bullet that killed Paige Neal–Walker because she was sitting in a car on the other side of the van from which Williams saw Watkins shooting. The circuit court granted the motion to remand and emphasized that defendants should have an opportunity to engage in "meaningful cross-examination" at the preliminary examination in the event that witnesses became unavailable at trial.

The circuit court erred when it remanded the case for a continued preliminary examination. Defendants did not establish any of the appropriate grounds for remanding the case. Notably, the circuit court denied defendants' motions to quash and thereby upheld the district court's finding of probable cause. It was therefore unnecessary to remand for the prosecutor to seek to remedy any shortcoming in the proofs. Nor was there a waiver by defendants of the right to a preliminary examination that could be deemed defective. The prosecutor did not seek to add new charges. The circuit court did not find a violation of any of the relevant rules related to the conduct of the preliminary examination or the probable cause determination. Accordingly, no grounds for remanding the case to the district court existed.

The fact that the ballistics report was prepared after the preliminary examination does not establish any of the recognized grounds for granting a remand. It bears emphasis that by denying defendants' motions to quash, the circuit court upheld the district court's finding of probable cause. See People v. Henderson, 282 Mich.App. 307, 312–313, 765 N.W.2d 619 (2009) (noting that a district court's bindover decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and that "[i]n reviewing the bindover decision, a circuit court must consider the entire record of the...