People v. Yeotis
| Decision Date | 13 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 20,20 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Thomas C. YEOTIS, Municipal Judge for the City of Flint, Defendant and Appellee, and Joseph P. Cusenza, Intervenor Defendant and Appellee. * |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Ivan E. Barris, Detroit, for intervenor defendant-appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
THE CASE
On November 6, 1967, a warrant was issued for the arrest of one Joseph Cusenza and six other persons for the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. Preliminary examination was had in the municipal court of Flint before Thomas C. Yeotis, municipal judge. On March 7, 1968, after a long and complicated examination, the magistrate filed a written opinion in which some of the defendants were bound over to circuit court for trial, and others, including Cusenza, were not.
The prosecuting attorney, purporting to act on behalf of the people, sought to obtain an original writ of superintending control in the Court of Appeals, directing the municipal judge to find probable cause as to Cusenza, and bind him over for trial in circuit court.
On July 26, 1968, the Court of Appeals denied the appellant's complaint for superintending control for the reason that the complaint should be addressed to the circuit court.
We granted leave to appeal. Joseph P. Cusenza has intervened as a defendant-appellee, pursuant to our order of September 13, 1968.
No argument is made here as to the proper office of superintending control as a means of reviewing the discretion of an examining magistrate. The order of superintending control embraces the functions of the former writ of mandamus. GCR 711.3(2).
Superintending control, like mandamus, lies to require the magistrate to perform a function where the magistrate has a clear legal duty to act.
The superintending court does not substitute its judgment or discretion for that of the magistrate; neither does it act directly in the premises. Rather it examines the record made before the magistrate to determine whether there was such an abuse of discretion as would amount to a failure to perform a clear legal duty; and in such case, the superintending court orders the magistrate to perform his duty.
The process is not, properly speaking, an appeal. It is rather a whole
new lawsuit, with different parties and different purposes. People v. Yeotis is not a criminal case, but is rather an original civil complaint designed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne, In re, Docket No. 94486
...tribunal exceeded that jurisdiction, and whether the inferior tribunal proceeded according to law"). Cf. People v. Flint Municipal Judge, 383 Mich. 429, 432, 175 N.W.2d 750 (1970) ("The superintending court does not substitute its judgment or discretion for that of the magistrate; neither d......
-
IN RE LAPEER CTY. CLERK, Docket No. 225025.
... ... In re Recorder's Court Bar Ass'n v. Wayne Circuit Court, 443 Mich. 110, 134, 503 N.W.2d 885 (1993) ; In re People v. Burton, 429 Mich. 133, 139, 413 N.W.2d 413 (1987) ; Lockhart v. Thirty-Sixth Dist. Court Judge, 204 Mich.App. 684, 688, 516 N.W.2d 76 (1994) ; ... ...
-
Recorder's Court Bar Ass'n v. Wayne Circuit Court
... ... Page 893 ... People v. Williams, 225 Mich. 133, 195 N.W. 818 (1923); People v. Harris, 266 Mich. 317, 318, 253 N.W. 312 (1934). Indeed, it was not until the enactment ... ...
- People v. Burton