People of Michigan v. Daniel Jay Weaver
329900
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Defendant (Weaver) was on bond for a separate drunk‑driving case when troopers pursued a pickup he was driving; after a pursuit into woods the trooper identified him and he was later arrested.
- Charged and convicted by jury of operating without a valid license (2nd+), third‑degree fleeing and eluding, and resisting/obstructing a police officer; sentenced as a fourth‑offense habitual offender with concurrent sentences but consecutive to his DUI case sentence.
- Pretrial, defendant rejected plea offers, demanded substitute counsel, then sought to represent himself; the court denied new counsel but permitted self‑representation with standby counsel present.
- At trial, the officer testified about defendant’s postarrest statements: defendant claimed an alibi, declined to give details, asked whether charges could be dropped, then requested a lawyer. Prosecutor referenced those statements.
- On appeal defendant argued: (1) the court failed to secure a proper waiver of counsel/self‑representation; (2) court abused its discretion by denying substitute counsel; (3) prosecutor improperly commented on postarrest/Miranda silence; and (4) assorted claims raised in a Standard 4 brief (judicial bias, sentence punishment for rejecting plea, ineffective assistance, bail revocation). Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of self‑representation waiver | Court substantially complied with Anderson/MCR 6.005; defendant knowingly waived right to counsel | Waiver was invalid: court didn’t follow MCR 6.005/Russell requirements (didn’t detail risks, continuing right to counsel, disruption inquiry, or make express finding) | Waiver was valid under substantial‑compliance standard; defendant knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waived and court adequately advised him at trial day |
| Denial of substitute counsel | No good cause to replace appointed counsel; defendant’s complaints were general or concerned a separate DUI case | Counsel‑breakdown and irreconcilable differences required substitute counsel | No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show good cause (complaints were general, concerned another case, or reflected gamesmanship) |
| Prosecutor’s references to postarrest silence/statements | Prosecutor’s references were to defendant’s actual statements (not mere silence) so not a Miranda/Doyle violation | Prosecutor improperly used defendant’s postarrest silence/statements in opening/closing and officer examination, violating due process | No reversible error: defendant made statements (claimed alibi, refused particulars) and did not unambiguously invoke Miranda silence until later; any error was not plain or prejudicial |
| Miscellaneous Standard 4 claims (bias, plea penalty, ineffective assistance, bail) | Court rejects as frivolous or unsupported by record | Defendant asserted multiple claims in Standard 4 brief | Rejected: claims unsupported or would not warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Anderson, 398 Mich 361 (defines judicial inquest for valid self‑representation waiver)
- People v. Russell, 471 Mich 182 (articulates substantial‑compliance standard and waiver elements)
- People v. Adkins (After Remand), 452 Mich 702 (clarifies scope of judicial inquiry and rejects rote litany in waiver colloquy)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 US 370 (accused must unambiguously invoke right to remain silent)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (Miranda warnings and protections against compelled self‑incrimination)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 US 610 (use of postarrest, post‑Miranda silence generally prohibited)
- People v. Shafier, 483 Mich 205 (explains Miranda/Doyle limits and due process analysis)
- People v. McFall, 309 Mich App 377 (standard for substitute appointed counsel)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain‑error review standard)