Ricks v. State
| Citation | 507 Mich. 387,968 N.W.2d 428 |
| Decision Date | 08 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 160657 |
| Parties | Desmond RICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Michigan, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington PC (by Sima G. Patel and Geoffrey N. Fieger, Southfield) for Desmond Ricks.
Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, and B. Eric Restuccia, Deputy Solicitor General, for the people.
Michigan Innocence Clinic (by Imran J. Syed and David A. Moran, Detroit) for Justly Johnson, amicus curiae.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
A wrongful conviction is a harm that can never be fully redressed. When an innocent person is imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit, we can't rewind the clock to make them whole again. They can't get back the time lost raising their children, forging a career, or contributing to their communities. But our Legislature has tried to compensate for these injuries, as best as the government can, by enacting the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act (WICA), MCL 691.1751 et seq. The WICA awards $50,000 for each year someone spends wrongfully imprisoned, subject to a few exceptions set forth in the act. This case is about one of those exceptions: MCL 691.1755(4), which bars compensation for any time served under a consecutive sentence for another conviction.
The question is whether this exception applies when a wrongful conviction alone triggered a parole revocation, which required the WICA claimant's parole-revoked sentence to be served before the sentence for the wrongful conviction would begin to run. We hold that it does not, because the time served under the parole-revoked sentence is not served under a consecutive sentence for another conviction. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Court of Claims for further proceedings.
In 1992, plaintiff Desmond Ricks saw a man shoot and kill Gerry Bennett in Detroit. Ricks was on parole then; he began serving concurrent sentences for armed robbery and assault with intent to rob while armed in 1987 and was paroled on May 30, 1991. When he witnessed Bennett's murder, Ricks still had 4 years and 118 days remaining on his armed-robbery and assault sentences.
As he fled from the gunman, Ricks dropped his winter coat. It would later be discovered by the police, who used it to connect him to Bennett's killing. Inside the coat was a phone book, a hospital visitor pass, and a picture of Ricks's baby daughter. Ricks was convicted of Bennett's murder, based in large part on ballistics evidence fabricated by a Detroit police officer. On October 12, 1992, he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison for second-degree murder and two years for carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm). Because Ricks was convicted of these new felonies, his parole for armed robbery and assault was violated and revoked. Michigan law required Ricks to serve the rest of those sentences before his new sentences could begin to run. Ricks's judgment of sentence for the wrongful murder conviction reflected this:
ORDER: Pursuant to [MCL] 768.7a(2), the term of imprisonment imposed in th[is] case shall begin to run at the expiration of the remaining portion of the[ ] term of imprisonme[nt] imposed in case no. 86-4314 (Recorder's Court).
As a result, Ricks served the rest of his armed-robbery and assault sentences from October 13, 1992 to February 8, 1997: 4 years and 118 days. After those sentences were completed, Ricks began to serve his sentences for the murder of Gerry Bennett. He would remain incarcerated for the next 7,412 days for a crime he didn't commit.
After the Michigan Innocence Clinic discovered that a Detroit Police Department officer had fabricated the ballistics evidence used to convict Ricks, the Wayne Circuit Court issued an order vacating his murder and felony-firearm convictions and sentences. Ricks was released from prison the same day, and the charges were dismissed.
Ricks filed a WICA complaint in the Court of Claims seeking compensation for the almost 25 years he was wrongfully imprisoned from October 13, 1992 to May 26, 2017. The state agreed that he had been wrongfully imprisoned and met the WICA's eligibility requirements for the time he wrongfully served for Bennett's murder. But it maintained that Ricks wasn't entitled to compensation for the 4 years and 118 days he served for his armed-robbery and assault sentences because his parole was revoked. The state's view was that MCL 691.1755(4), which provides that WICA "[c]ompensation may not be awarded ... for any time during which the plaintiff was imprisoned under a concurrent or consecutive sentence for another conviction," prohibited compensation for this time.
Ricks believed that he was entitled to compensation for the years that were allocated to his prior sentences because his wrongful convictions were the only reason his parole was violated and revoked. He included in his complaint an affidavit from Cynthia Partridge, the time computation manager for the Michigan Department of Corrections, who confirmed that Ricks's parole was violated only because he was convicted of murder.
The Court of Claims agreed with the state, holding that the time Ricks served under the armed-robbery and assault sentences should not be included in the WICA compensation calculation. A stipulated judgment was entered in Ricks's favor for $1,014,657.53, while he reserved the right to appeal the remainder of his claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Claims in a split decision. Ricks v. Michigan , 330 Mich. App. 277, 948 N.W.2d 83 (2019). This appeal followed.
The WICA was enacted "to provide compensation and other relief for individuals wrongfully imprisoned for crimes; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and agencies; and to provide remedies." 2016 PA 343, title. It waives sovereign immunity and allows a person who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned to seek compensation by bringing an action against the state in the Court of Claims. MCL 691.1753.
The WICA has two steps. The first determines whether a claimant is eligible for compensation. See MCL 691.1755(1). The second calculates the precise amount of compensation that must be awarded to eligible claimants. See MCL 691.1755(2).
Step one: The WICA defines who is eligible for compensation at MCL 691.1755(1). A successful WICA claimant must have been convicted of at least one crime under Michigan law, must have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a state correctional facility, and must have served at least part of the sentence for that crime. MCL 691.1755(1)(a). The claimant's conviction must have been reversed or vacated, and the claimant must prove that their charges were subsequently dismissed or that they were acquitted upon retrial. MCL 691.1755(1)(b). Finally, the claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the reason they can satisfy the requirements set forth in Subdivision (b) is because new evidence shows that they "did not perpetrate the crime and [were] not an accomplice or accessory to the acts that were the basis of the conviction ...." MCL 691.1755(1)(c). If the claimant satisfies all of these requirements, they are "entitled to judgment" in their favor. MCL 691.1755(1).
Step two: Subject to two exceptions, once a court finds that a plaintiff was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, it "shall award compensation" according to the provisions set forth in MCL 691.1755(2). The court must award $50,000 "for each year from the date the plaintiff was imprisoned until the date the plaintiff was released from prison ...." MCL 691.1755(2)(a).
The WICA carves out two relevant exceptions: one in the eligibility step and one in the compensation step. First, MCL 691.1755(1)(b) provides that a WICA claimant is not entitled to compensation—even if their conviction was set aside and they were not convicted of that offense again—if they were "convicted of another criminal offense arising from the same transaction and either that offense was not dismissed or the plaintiff was convicted of that offense on retrial."
Second, the compensation formula set forth at MCL 691.1755(2) explicitly conditions a WICA recipient's award on MCL 691.1755(4), which states that "[c]ompensation may not be awarded under subsection (2) for any time during which the plaintiff was imprisoned under a concurrent or consecutive sentence for another conviction." This is the exception relevant here.
We review de novo the WICA's compensation provisions. Sanford v. Michigan , 506 Mich. 10, 14, 954 N.W.2d 82 (2020). The precise question before us is whether the time Ricks served on the remainder of his parole-revoked sentences falls within MCL 691.1755(4) ’s bar on compensation "for any time during which the plaintiff was imprisoned under a concurrent or consecutive sentence for another conviction." The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent. Mich. Ed. Ass'n v. Secretary of State (On Remand) , 489 Mich. 194, 217, 801 N.W.2d 35 (2011). To do that, we read a statute's provisions "reasonably and in context." McCahan v. Brennan , 492 Mich. 730, 739, 822 N.W.2d 747 (2012).
The text of MCL 691.1755(4), the context in which it is set, and the WICA's purpose all lead to the same conclusion: the Legislature intended to compensate claimants like Ricks for time served on a parole-revoked sentence when it is directly attributable to their wrongful conviction.
Starting with the text. A statute's language "offers the most reliable evidence of the Legislature's intent." Badeen v. PAR, Inc. , 496 Mich. 75, 81, 853 N.W.2d 303 (2014). Here, that text is "Compensation may not be awarded under subsection (2) for any time during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maples v. State
...the WICA bucket, after all, and the Legislature had to decide how best to allocate limited funding." Ricks v. Michigan , 507 Mich. 387, 401, 968 N.W.2d 428 (2021) (Docket No. 160657); slip op. at 10. See also Sanford , 506 Mich. at 17, 954 N.W.2d 82 (the WICA gives "a defined class of wrong......
-
Avery v. State
...interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent. To do that, we read a statute's provisions reasonably and in context." Ricks, 507 Mich. at 397 (quotation marks citations omitted). "A statute's language 'offers the most reliable evidence of the Legislature's intent.'" Id. (cita......
-
Terzian v. Magaziner
...Section 12-33-2 establishes the gatekeeping requirements to present an actionable claim for compensation. See § 12-33-2; see also Ricks, 968 N.W.2d at 432 (noting similar distinction in Michigan's Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act between the "eligibility step and . . . the compensatio......
-
Day v. Dep't of Env't
...... . . In. January 2020, Michigan Attorney General, Dana Nessel, and the. State of Michigan filed a lawsuit in Washtenaw Circuit Court. against chemical companies alleging that they improperly. released toxic ...Buhl, 507. Mich. at 242. When interpreting a statute, the primary goal. is to give effect to the Legislature's intent. Ricks. v State of Mich, 507 Mich. 387, 397; 968 N.W.2d 428. (2021). The most reliable evidence of legislative intent is. the plain ......