People of Michigan v. James Ordell Keys III, 331493

Background

James Ordell Keys III pleaded guilty in three consolidated Oakland County cases (2004) to various drug and related offenses and was sentenced to concurrent jail terms and two years’ probation starting September 22, 2004.
Probation officer filed a Violation of Probation report in July–September 2005 for failure to remain crime-free, failure to pay restitution, failure to maintain employment, and failure to report; an appearance was scheduled for October 26, 2005 and adjourned to November 9, 2005.
Keys failed to appear on November 9, 2005; bench warrants were later issued (signed March 31, 2006, filed April 3, 2006).
Keys was not apprehended on those warrants until his 2014 arrest in Wayne County on unrelated charges; he subsequently pleaded guilty to the probation violations and was sentenced to prison.
On appeal/remand Keys argued (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction because revocation proceedings did not commence before probation expired, (2) the bench-warrant execution delay (≈9 years) waived the violations, and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to raise the above.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: revocation proceedings had commenced during the probation period; the long delay was largely due to Keys’ absconding and did not show lack of due diligence or prejudice; counsel’s failure to raise meritless objections was not ineffective assistance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to revoke probation	Probation revocation proceedings were timely commenced before probation expired (appearance notices, adjournment, bench warrant issued while probation still active).	Trial court lacked jurisdiction because no valid VOP warrant/summons was issued during probationary term to commence revocation.	Held: Proceedings commenced during probation (October–November 2005); bench warrant and filings sufficed; court retained jurisdiction.
Sufficiency/form of summons and warrant	Summons and warrant met court-rule requirements; defendant did not object at appearance so waiver applies.	Summons/warrant were procedurally defective under MCR 6.445/6.103 and thus did not start revocation proceedings.	Held: Documents were sufficient; defendant waived any challenge by failing to object earlier; court rules do not require hypertechnical compliance for jurisdiction.
Delay in executing bench warrant (due diligence)	Authorities exercised due diligence; delay was largely caused by defendant absconding and avoiding process.	Nine-year delay in executing warrant shows lack of due diligence and prejudiced defendant; warrants effectively waived.	Held: Delay does not automatically show lack of diligence; factors (length, reason, prejudice) point to defendant’s evasion and no demonstrated prejudice; revocation upheld.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel need not pursue frivolous or meritless motions; declining to raise these claims was reasonable.	Counsel ineffective for not challenging jurisdiction/delay.	Held: No ineffective assistance — objections lacked merit and counsel not required to raise them.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Ritter, 186 Mich App 701 (probation revocation proceedings commence if initiated during probation; filing preserves jurisdiction)
Hodges v. People, 231 Mich 656 (petition filed during probation gives court jurisdiction despite delays to hearing)
People v. Glass, 288 Mich App 399 (revocation must be commenced during probation; court lacked jurisdiction where proceedings began after probation expired)
People v. Ortman, 209 Mich App 251 (authorities must exercise due diligence in executing bench warrants; apply speedy-trial factors)
People v. Miller, 77 Mich App 381 (use length/reason/prejudice factors from speedy-trial context to assess due diligence)
People v. Collins, 388 Mich 680 (speedy-trial factors: length of delay, reason for delay, prejudice)
People v. Pipes, 475 Mich 267 (failure to object timely can waive challenge to procedural defects)