People v. Williamson, Docket No. 70517

• Decision Date: 07 January 1985
• Docket Number: Docket No. 70517
• Citation: 138 Mich.App. 397,360 N.W.2d 199
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence WILLIAMSON, Defendant-Appellee. 138 Mich.App. 397, 360 N.W.2d 199
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 199

360 N.W.2d 199

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence WILLIAMSON, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 70517.

138 Mich.App. 397, 360 N.W.2d 199

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 5, 1984.

Decided Oct. 16, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1984.

Released for Publication Jan. 7, 1985.

[138 MICHAPP 398] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Appellate Asst. Pros., Civil and Appeals, and Jeffrey Caminsky, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Alice B. Rucker, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Before J.H. GILLIS, P.J., and KELLY and MULLEN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following a waiver of the right to a jury trial, defendant was convicted on September 15, 1980, following a bench trial of resisting and obstructing an officer, M.C.L. Sec. 750.479; M.S.A. Sec. 28.747. He was sentenced to five years probation but his conviction was reversed and the cause remanded in People v. Williamson (Docket No. 54862, decided January 21, 1983 [unreported] ).

On remand, defendant moved to dismiss the charge on the basis that any further prosecution had been rendered moot. Defendant argued and the trial court agreed that because the statute under which he was convicted imposed a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $1,000 and because defendant had served two of his five years probation sentence in an exemplary manner, there was no [138 MICHAPP 399] reason to further prosecute defendant on this charge. Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted over the prosecution's objection. We reverse.

Trial courts may dismiss criminal charges over the prosecutor's objection only where permitted by statute or where there is an insufficiency of the evidence. People v. Augustus Jones, 94 Mich.App. 516, 519, 288 N.W.2d 411 (1979); People v. Morris, 77 Mich.App. 561, 563, 258 N.W.2d 559 (1977), lv. den. 402 Mich. 844 (1977). The issue here is whether the trial court was authorized under the nolle prosequi statute to dismiss the charge in this case. M.C.L. Sec. 767.29; M.S.A. Sec. 28.969 provides:

"A prosecuting attorney shall not enter a nolle prosequi upon an indictment, or discontinue or abandon the indictment, without stating on the record the reasons for the discontinuance or abandonment and without the leave of the court having jurisdiction to try the offense charged, entered in its minutes."

The general rule is that only the prosecutor has the authority as part of the executive function to initiate a nolle prosequi, though entry of the order is subject to the approval of the courts. Genesee Prosecutor v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 391 Mich. 115, 215 N.W.2d 145 (1974); People v. Nelson, 66 Mich.App. 60, 64, 238 N.W.2d 201 (1975). This Court has held, however, that in limited circumstances a trial court may enter a nolle prosequi on its own initiative, over the objection of the prosecutor. Where the trial court finds that the prosecuting attorney or the examining magistrate has abused his or her discretion in proceeding against the defendant, a nolle prosequi may be entered. Nelson, supra, pp. 65-66, 238 N.W.2d 201, citing Genesee Prosecutor, supra.

In this case, the trial court dismissed the charge against the defendant without finding any abuse of [138 MICHAPP 400] discretion on the part of the prosecutor. The trial court's sole reason for dismissing the charge against the...