829 N.W.2d 314
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Chico-Polo, not a U.S. citizen, received a life sentence for delivering or manufacturing a controlled substance (over 650 grams) in 1998.
- An order of deportation was issued in 2003.
- Chico-Polo sought mandamus or declaratory relief to compel parole to ICE for deportation under MCL 791.234b, arguing eligibility after serving 20 years.
- Department of Corrections reviewed his file and concluded he was not eligible due to his life sentence; administrative grievances and declaratory rulings were exhausted/denied.
- Trial court held MCL 791.234b(2)(b)'s 20-year minimum is imposed by the court and therefore life-sentenced prisoners are ineligible; the court denied mandamus, and the matter was appealed.
- Concurrence discusses statutory interpretation difficulties and the mandamus standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 791.234b(2)(b) applies to life-sentenced prisoners | Chico-Polo argues 20-year minimum for parole eligibility applies to life inmates | Department argues life sentences have no court-imposed minimum, so ineligible | Statute excludes life-sentenced inmates from parole/deportation under 791.234b(2)(b) |
| Stringency of plain-language interpretation of MCL 791.234b(2)(b) | Plain language supports parole eligibility after 20 years | Plain language requires minimum sentence imposed by the court | Plain language excludes life sentences; minimum must be court-imposed |
| Whether mandamus was proper relief | Writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel release for deportation if criteria met | Statutory ambiguity and lack of clear duty defeat mandamus relief | Trial court did not abuse discretion; mandamus denied |
| Whether declaratory relief should have been granted | Declaratory relief would clarify eligibility under 791.234b | Statutory interpretation remains unsettled; discretionary denial appropriate | Court deferred grant of declaratory relief; not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732 (2002) (words should not be ignored or treated as surplusage; avoid nugatory language)
- Mich Ed Ass’n v Secretary of State (On Rehearing), 489 Mich 194 (2011) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning guidance)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co v Mich Catastrophic Claims Ass’n (On Rehearing), 484 Mich 1 (2009) (plain meaning and context in interpretation)
- Tuggle v Dep’t of State Police, 269 Mich App 657 (2006) (statutory interpretation and deference standards)