People of Michigan v. Phillip James Lanaville
331531
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Defendant was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of first-degree home invasion, second-degree home invasion, breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, and unlawful driving away of an automobile; sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to lengthy concurrent terms.
- DOC mailed notice of defendant’s imprisonment to the prosecutor (stamped received March 31, 2014); trial began December 8, 2015.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Michigan’s 180-day rule (MCL 780.131); the trial court denied the motion and a stay followed while defendant sought interlocutory appeal (denied March 27, 2015).
- After the appeal denial there was a period of apparent inactivity tied in part to the death of defendant’s original counsel and the subsequent appointment of successor counsel; pretrial activity resumed and trial was scheduled for December 8, 2015.
- Defendant also challenged his remote (video) participation in several pretrial motion hearings, arguing violation of his right to be physically present and that court rule did not authorize use of video for those motions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the 180-day dismissal and finding any video-use error was not prejudicial plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charges must be dismissed under the 180-day rule | People: Prosecutor commenced action within 180 days and thereafter proceeded with reasonable diligence toward trial | Lanaville: Initial compliance followed by inexcusable delay after interlocutory-appeal denial made the 180 days ineffective | Court: No dismissal — prosecutor commenced within 180 days and later delays were not inexcusable; steady progress and diligence shown |
| Whether defendant’s right to be physically present was violated by video attendance at pretrial motions | People: The hearings were not "critical stages" requiring physical presence; no prejudice | Lanaville: Video attendance deprived him of constitutional right to be present at critical stages | Court: No plain error — hearings not critical stages and defendant not prejudiced |
| Whether using two-way video for pretrial motions complied with court rule (MCR 6.006) | People: Procedural use of video may have been acceptable in practice and caused no prejudice | Lanaville: MCR 6.006 does not authorize video attendance at motion hearings; rule was violated | Court: Rule was violated (MCR 6.006 does not list pretrial motions), but error was not prejudicial plain error; affirmance stands |
| Preservation and standard of review for video-attendance claim | People: Claim unpreserved; review under plain-error standard, requiring prejudice | Lanaville: Argues constitutional error regardless of preservation | Court: Claim unpreserved; reviewed for plain error under People v Carines and reversed relief denied because no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lown, 488 Mich. 242 (2011) (prosecutor must "proceed promptly" and move case to readiness for trial within 180 days)
- People v Hendershot, 357 Mich. 300 (1959) (good-faith action toward trial readiness is required under the 180-day rule)
- People v Forrest, 72 Mich. App. 266 (1977) (prosecutor must show reasonable diligence and steady progress toward trial even if trial occurs after 180 days)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims requires showing of outcome-determinative error or serious effect on judicial integrity)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (due process guarantees presence at stages where absence might frustrate fairness)
- Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (1983) (defendant has right to personal presence at critical stages)
- People v Mallory, 421 Mich. 229 (1984) (enumeration of trial stages where presence is required and test for substantial-rights impact)
- People v Heller, 316 Mich. App. 314 (2016) (court rules that expressly list permissible video uses imply exclusion of other uses)