Defendant has applied for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeals order directing the trial court to immediately revoke his bond. Hе argues that his pending application for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court is an “appeal” for the purpose of MCL 770.8, so that hе remains entitled to be free on bond. We hold that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not an appeal within the meaning of MCL 770.8. We thus аffirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
i
In 1999, defendant conditionally pleaded guilty 1 to a charge of possessing 225 or more grams, but less than 650 grams, of cocaine in violation of MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(ii), and the court sеntenced him to a seven-and-one-half to thirty-year term of imprisonment. The plea agreement permitted defendant to appeal the legаlity of a search warrant that led to the discovery of the cocaine. The agreement also permitted defendant to remain free on bond “рending *303 appeal.” The trial court accepted the plea, sentenced defendant in accordance with the agreement, and entеred an order that permitted him to be free on a bond of $50,000 or ten percent pending appeal.
The Court of Appeals denied defendant’s аpplication for leave to appeal for lack of merit in the grounds presented. 2 This Court also denied leave to appeal. 3 Defendant then petitioned the United States Supreme Cоurt for a writ of certiorari, which it denied. 4
The prosecutor then moved in the trial court to revoke defendant’s bond. While that motion was pending, defendant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 USC 2254. The prosecutor argued before the trial court that the federal habeas corpus proceeding was an independent civil action rather than a continuation of direct appellate review, and that the trial court therefore no longer had authority to continue bond. The trial court denied the prosecutоr’s motion, but increased defendant’s bond to $100,000.
The prosecutor then filed an emergency application for leave to appeal in the Cоurt of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered the trial court to immediately revoke defendant’s bond and remand him to the custody оf the Department of Corrections. 5 Defendant then filed in this Court an application for *304 leave to appeal and a motion for a stay of proceedings. We denied the motion for stay while we considered the application for leave to appeal. 6 We now affirm.
n
Defendant argues that he is entitled to remain at liberty during the pendency of his аpplication for a writ of habeas corpus because the federal proceeding is an appeal for the purpose of MCL 770.8.
This cаse presents an issue of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.
Lesner v Liquid Disposal, Inc,
MCL 770.8 provides:
During the time between the trial court judgment and the decision of the court to which an appeal is taken, the trial judge may admit the defendant to bail, if the offense charged is bailable and if the offense is not an assaultive crime аs defined in section 9a of this chapter.
This provision permits bail only
during
the process of
appeal.
The statute does not define the word “appeal,” so we may consult a dictionary to ascertain the mеaning of the term.
Consumers Power Co v Pub Service Comm,
This definition does not describe the instant relationship in which state courts are not “inferior” to or “lower” than federal courts, and federal courts are not “superior” to or “higher” than state courts. Rather, such courts constitute separate systems of justice.
28 USC 2254 does not grant federal courts the power of appellate review of state court convictions. Rather, it provides for an original proceeding in a federal court challenging the custody of a person who is detained under a judgment of a state court. It sets forth a process of “application” for a writ and denominates one who seeks a writ аs an “applicant” rather than an “appellant.” In short, the statute does not provide for direct or appellate review of the state court judgment of conviction and sentence. 28 USC 2254(a)-(h).
Moreover, as the United States Supreme Court has explained:
The whole history of the writ — -its unique development— refutes a construction of the federal courts’ habeas corpus powers that would assimilate their task to that of courts of appellate review. The function on habeas is different. It is to test by way of an original civil proceeding, independent of the normal channels of review of criminal judgments, the very gravest allegations. State prisoners are entitlеd to relief on federal habeas corpus only upon proving that their detention violates the fundamental liberties of the person, *306 safeguarded аgainst state action by the Federal Constitution. [Townsend v Sain,372 US 293 , 311-312;83 S Ct 745 ;9 L Ed 2d 770 (1963), overruled in part on other grounds Keeney v Tamayo-Reyes,504 US 1 ;112 S Ct 1715 ;118 L Ed 2d 318 (1992).]
Similarly, Michigan case law has long distinguished applications for the writ of habeas corpus from appеals from criminal proceedings:
Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding the main purpose of which is to cause the release of pеrsons illegally confined, to inquire into the authority of law by which a person is deprived of his liberty. Application for the writ of habeas corpus is not made in thе criminal proceedings; it is made in a new and independent civil action instituted to enforce a civil right, the right to liberty. [People v McCager,367 Mich 116 , 121;116 NW2d 205 (1962) (citations omitted).]
See also
In re Palm, 255
Mich 632, 634;
A federal district court considering an application under 28 USC 2254 is simply a trial court exercising original jurisdiction over an application for a writ authorized under federal law. See 28 USC 1331. That its habeas corpus jurisdiction permits it, under carefully defined circumstances, to scrutinize state court proceedings for alleged violations of the United Stаtes Constitution and federal laws does not transform the federal district court into a superior appellate court with jurisdiction to reverse the judgment оf a prisoner’s conviction. Rather, its power is limited to granting a writ that compels the release of the prisoner from unlawful detention.
Accordingly, we hоld that an application for a writ of habeas corpus does not constitute a criminal *307 “appeal” within the meaning of MCL 770.8. A court’s authority to grant a bond under MCL 770.8 is limited to the time during the appellate process, and federal habeas corpus proceedings are not a continuation of thаt process.
in
For the foregoing reasons we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Notes
Conditional pleas are permitted under MCR 6.301(C)(2) (permitting conditional pleas to preserve for appeal specified pretrial rulings аnd entitling the defendant to withdraw his plea if the specified pretrial ruling is overturned on appeal); see also
People v Reid,
Unpublished order, entered August 30, 2000 (Docket No. 228299).
Jones v Michigan,
Unpublished order, entered April 4, 2002 (Docket No. 239673), clarified, unpublished order, entered April 22, 2002 (clarifying that the prior order had immediate effect under MCR 7.215[F][2]).