Wayne County Prosecutor v. Parole Bd., Docket Nos. 147850

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 210 Mich.App. 148,532 N.W.2d 899
• Parties: WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAROLE BOARD, Defendant, and Charles Shockley, Intervening Defendant-Appellant. WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAROLE BOARD, Defendant-Appellant, and Department of Corrections, Martin Makel, Thomas Patten, and Gloria Richardson, Defendants, and Charles Shockley, Intervening Defendant. WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PAROLE BOARD, Department of Corrections, Martin Makel, Thomas Patten, and Gloria Richardson, Defendants, and Charles Shockley, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 21 April 1995
• Docket Number: 147967,Docket Nos. 147850,155594

Page 899

532 N.W.2d 899 210 Mich.App. 148 WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PAROLE BOARD, Defendant,
and
Charles Shockley, Intervening Defendant-Appellant.
WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PAROLE BOARD, Defendant-Appellant,
and
Department of Corrections, Martin Makel, Thomas Patten, and
Gloria Richardson, Defendants,
and
Charles Shockley, Intervening Defendant.
WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
PAROLE BOARD, Department of Corrections, Martin Makel,
Thomas Patten, and Gloria Richardson, Defendants,
and
Charles Shockley, Defendant-Appellant. Docket Nos. 147850, 147967, 155594. Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted Dec. 19, 1994, at Detroit.
Decided April 21, 1995, at 10:40 a.m.
Released for Publication June 19, 1995.

Page 900

[210 Mich.App. 150] John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., and George E. Ward, Chief Asst. Prosecutor, Detroit, for Wayne County Prosecutor and the crime victim.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., and Chester S. Sugierski, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for Parole Bd.

ACLU Fund of Michigan by Patricia A. Streeter, Neal Bush, and Goodman, Eden, Millender & Bedrosian by William H. Goodman, Detroit, for Charles Shockley.

Before MARILYN J. KELLY, P.J., and CYNAR ^* and WILDER, ^** JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Charles Shockley was granted parole by the Parole Board on September 5, 1991, and again on May 14, 1992. ¹ In each instance, the prosecutor and the victim of Mr. Shockley's crimes appealed to the circuit court and the parole decisions were vacated. ² Mr. Shockley and the board appeal as of right from the first [210 Mich.App. 151] decision; Mr. Shockley appeals by delayed leave granted from the second decision. The parties' separate appeals have been consolidated. We reverse and remand.

We first consider whether venue for this case was proper in Wayne County, where defendant was convicted, rather than in Ingham County, where the Parole Board acted. We conclude that venue was properly laid.

In Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan v. Commr. of Ins., 155 Mich.App. 723, 728-729, 400 N.W.2d 638 (1986), this Court held that, in appeals from decisions of administrative agencies, venue is proper either where prescribed by statutes applicable to the agency, or as provided in M.C.L. § 600.631; M.S.A. § 27A.631, or as provided in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), M.C.L. § 24.201 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.560(101) et seq. In the case before us, the statutes regarding the agency do not address the question of venue. See M.C.L. § 791.231-791.246; M.S.A. § 28.2301-28.2316. Similarly, because a right to appeal has been specifically provided by law, M.C.L. § 600.631; M.S.A.

Page 901

§ 27A.631, which controls general appeals from agency decisions, does not apply. See M.C.L. § 791.234(5); M.S.A. § 28.2304(5). Lastly, because this is not a contested case as defined by the court rules and the APA, the venue provisions of the APA do not apply either. See M.C.L. § 24.301; M.S.A. § 3.560(201); see also M.C.L. § 24.303; M.S.A. § 3.560(203); MCR 7.105(A)(2). We also note that the general provision of the Revised Judicature Act regarding actions against government agencies does not apply because this was an appeal and not an original action. See M.C.L. § 600.1615; M.S.A. § 27A.1615.

In the absence of any clearly applicable venue provision, we find that the general venue statute governing appeals from government agency decisions--although not technically applicable--is in [210 Mich.App. 152] pari materia with the parole appeal statute and therefore should apply by analogy. See M.C.L. § 600.631; M.S.A. § 27A.631. Thus, venue was proper either in "the county of which the appellant is a resident or [in] the circuit court of Ingham county." Because appellants reside in Wayne County, venue was proper there.

Appellants next argue that the prosecutor and the victim of Mr. Shockley's crimes had no standing to contest the board's grants of parole. We disagree.

Since the trial court's decisions in these two cases, the parole statute has been amended to specifically allow appeals from a grant of parole by the victim and the prosecutor of the county where the defendant was convicted. See M.C.L. § 791.234(5); M.S.A. § 28.2304(5). The legislative analysis specifically refers to this case and to the board's argument that the victim and the prosecutor lack standing as reasons for enacting the amendment. It is well-settled that when an amendment is enacted soon after controversies arise regarding the meaning of the original act, it is logical to regard the amendment as a legislative interpretation of the original act. Detroit v. Walker, 445 Mich. 682, 697, 520 N.W.2d 135 (1994), and authority cited therein. Thus, the amendment clarifies that, all along, the Legislature intended to give the victim and the prosecutor standing to appeal the Parole Board's decision. See id.

Next, appellants argue that the trial court applied the wrong standard of review when it decided that the board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We agree and reverse and remand.

Review of agency decisions "in cases in which a hearing is required" must include the determination whether the decision is "supported by...