Desmond Ricks v. State of Michigan
160657
| Mich. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Desmond Ricks was serving 1987 convictions for armed robbery and assault and was on parole with ~4 years, 118 days remaining when, in 1992, he was wrongfully convicted of murder based largely on fabricated ballistics evidence.
- Ricks’s 1992 convictions caused a parole revocation; by statute he had to serve the remainder of his 1987 sentences (Oct 13, 1992–Feb 8, 1997) before his 1992 sentences began; he then served the 1992 sentences until they were vacated in 2017.
- The Wayne Circuit Court vacated the 1992 convictions after police fabrication was uncovered; charges were dismissed and Ricks was released May 26, 2017.
- Ricks sued under the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act (WICA), seeking compensation for his incarceration from Oct 13, 1992 to May 26, 2017; the State conceded wrongful imprisonment for the 1992 convictions but argued WICA bars recovery for the time spent serving the 1987 parole‑revoked sentences under MCL 691.1755(4).
- The Court of Claims and a divided Court of Appeals denied compensation for the 1987 sentence period; the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding the statutory consecutive‑sentence exception did not apply and that once a claimant meets WICA’s threshold eligibility, the court simply calculates time served unless subsection (4) applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ricks) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 691.1755(4) (no compensation for time imprisoned under a concurrent or consecutive sentence for another conviction) bars recovery for time served on a parole‑revoked sentence that was required solely because of the wrongful conviction | Time spent serving the revoked parole term is wrongful because the revocation occurred only due to the wrongful 1992 conviction; that time should be included in the WICA calculation | Subsection (4) excludes any time imprisoned under a consecutive sentence for another conviction (the 1987 convictions), so Ricks cannot recover for that period | Majority: (reversed) subsection (4) does not apply because the parole‑revoked sentence was served before the later sentence began to run and therefore was not “a … consecutive sentence for another conviction” as the provision is written |
| Whether a claimant must satisfy WICA’s threshold eligibility (MCL 691.1755(1)) separately for each conviction that contributed to the overall period of imprisonment (i.e., the 1987 convictions) | Once Ricks satisfies WICA’s eligibility for the wrongful 1992 convictions, the court must calculate compensation for the time he was imprisoned because of those wrongful convictions unless subsection (4) excludes particular periods | Recovery is limited to imprisonment tied to convictions that were reversed/vacated and dismissed; because the 1987 convictions were never vacated, Ricks fails the threshold for that period | Majority: (reversed) eligibility is a threshold inquiry; once met for the wrongful conviction, the court then calculates time served and applies subsection (4) if applicable — Ricks need not re‑establish eligibility for the 1987 convictions to recover time caused by the wrongful 1992 conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanford v. Michigan, 506 Mich. 10 (Mich. 2020) (interpreting WICA, wrongful‑imprisonment concept, and standard of review)
- People v. Chambers, 430 Mich. 217 (Mich. 1988) (definition/characterization of consecutive sentences)
- McCahan v. Brennan, 492 Mich. 730 (Mich. 2012) (statutes must be read reasonably and in context)
- Rock v. Crocker, 499 Mich. 247 (Mich. 2016) (every word and phrase in a statute should be given effect)
- Badeen v. PAR, Inc., 496 Mich. 75 (Mich. 2014) (statutory language is primary evidence of legislative intent)
- Robinson v. Lansing, 486 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2010) (interpretation of definite article “the” in statutory text)