People of Michigan v. Oronde Graham
329298
Mich. Ct. App.Feb 16, 2017Background
- Defendant (Graham) was involved in an August 29, 2013 incident while on parole and later returned to prison after pleading guilty to parole violations.
- On February 10, 2014, while defendant remained incarcerated, the prosecutor filed a criminal complaint and issued a warrant charging conduct from August 29, 2013.
- MDOC did not send formal certified notice to the county prosecutor about the untried complaint until June 2, 2015; defendant was arraigned May 29, 2015 and bound over June 12, 2015.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under the 180-day rule (MCL 780.131), claiming the prosecutor had actual knowledge of his incarceration earlier and thus violated the 180-day requirement.
- The trial court granted dismissal, finding the prosecutor had actual notice as of January 2014; the prosecutor appealed.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal, holding the 180-day clock is triggered only by MDOC’s written certified notice to the prosecuting attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When is the 180-day period under MCL 780.131 triggered? | 180-day clock begins only after MDOC’s certified written notice is sent to prosecutor. | Clock should run from prosecutor’s actual knowledge of defendant’s incarceration (earlier than MDOC notice). | Trigger is the MDOC’s certified written notice; actual prosecutorial knowledge does not start the 180-day period. |
| Whether dismissal was warranted for violation of the 180-day rule | Prosecutor: no violation because formal MDOC notice arrived June 2, 2015 and proceedings followed within 180 days. | Defendant: dismissal required because prosecutor knew earlier and delayed bringing defendant to trial. | Dismissal was erroneous; no 180-day violation because proceedings occurred within 180 days after MDOC notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 301 Mich App 188 (court holds MDOC must send written certified notice to trigger 180-day requirement)
- People v. Williams, 475 Mich 245 (statute's notice requirement is mandatory; 180-day period begins after prosecutor receives MDOC notice)
- People v. McLaughlin, 258 Mich App 635 (standard of review for legal issues reviewed de novo)
- People v. Nicholson, 297 Mich App 191 (abuse of discretion standard for motion to dismiss)
- People v. Henderson, 497 Mich 988 (order indicating MDOC letter sent before a warrant does not trigger the 180-day rule)