PEOPLE v. McKERCHIE
311 Mich. App. 465
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Michael McKerchie was released on parole in Dec 2012 and later placed in the Department of Corrections’ Residential Re‑Entry Program at the Lake Facility after suspected parole violations.
- In July 2013 McKerchie left the secured Lake Facility without permission; officers recovered indicia linking him to the exit and a stolen vehicle; he was arrested and charged with prison escape (MCL 750.193), among other offenses.
- At preliminary examination the court bound McKerchie over on the escape charge; defense later moved to quash/dismiss arguing MCL 750.193(3) immunizes parolees who violate parole from being “escapees.”
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the escape charge, reasoning the statutory sentence “A person violating the conditions of parole is not an escapee under this act” barred prosecution when the act is also a parole violation.
- The Attorney General appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and whether the trial court abused its discretion in quashing the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 750.193(3)’s phrase “A person violating the conditions of parole is not an escapee under this act” bars prosecution when the same act violates parole | AG: The sentence was meant only to prevent prosecutors from relying solely on a parole violation as the element of escape; it does not grant blanket immunity | McKerchie: The sentence bars prosecution for escape whenever the act also violates parole (i.e., parolees cannot be “escapees”) | Court: Reversed trial court; statute does not provide broad immunity. A parole violation alone is not sufficient to constitute escape, but an act can be both a parole violation and an escape for purposes of MCL 750.193 if elements of escape are otherwise met. |
| Whether defendant’s incarceration at the Lake Facility was unlawful such that he could not be prosecuted for escape | McKerchie: He was improperly confined without a parole‑revocation hearing, so incarceration was unlawful and escape prosecution is barred | AG: Department had reasonable cause to arrest and/or continued parole with new condition; failure to hold a timely hearing does not mandate release and does not necessarily make detention unlawful | Court: Declined to resolve on appeal; held that record does not establish unlawful incarceration that would categorically bar prosecution and any claim about illegality of confinement is for the trial court to address as a potential defense at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Stone, 463 Mich. 558 (Court reviewed abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to quash)
- People v Janes, 302 Mich. App. 34 (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- People v Duncan, 494 Mich. 713 (trial court abuses discretion when decision rests on legal error)
- People v Armisted, 295 Mich. App. 32 (distinction between being paroled and released into the community; parolees may remain confined temporarily)
- People v Sheets, 223 Mich. App. 651 (definition of escape: removal from an imposed restraint on person and volition)
- People v Cunningham, 496 Mich. 145 (statutory interpretation requires reading provision in context of statutory scheme)
- Jones v Dep’t of Corrections, 468 Mich. 646 (parolee may be arrested without warrant on reasonable cause; limitations on liberty interest and remedies for hearing delay)