*1
624
PEOPLE v STEWART (Calendar 1). Argued 9, Docket No. 124055. March 2005 No. Decided 28, June 2005. by jury Saginaw Leonard L. Stewart was convicted in the Circuit possession grams Court of with intent to deliver more than 650 of conspiracy possession cocaine and to commit intent deliver grams more than 650 of cocaine. He was sentenced to two possibility parole. life consecutive sentences without the Three years later, statutory in certain amendments allowed the eligible parole years imprison- defendant to be for after 17.5 petitioned ment. The defendant then the trial court to be certified having cooperated as with law enforcement under MCL 791.234(10), thereby making eligible years him 2.5 court, earlier than he be would without such certification. The Leopold Borrello, J., request. Appeals, P denied the The Court of EJ., JJ., and Owens denied the Griffin, Schuette, delayed application appeal unpublished order, leave an (Docket 243562). 21, May entered Supreme No. The Court granted application appeal. the defendant’s for leave to 470 Mich (2004). opinion by joined In by an Justice Chief Justice Weaver, Supreme and Justices Cavanagh, Corrigan, Young, Taylor, Court held: cooperation may 1. The of a filing occur at time before the of a motion for cooperation determination of and before the is released parole. imposes on sentencing statute no limits on when a may court make a determination that occurred. The court make the determination at time before an order of parole is entered. 2. A who never information or who had provide provide relevant or useful information to and chose not to the information when it was still relevant and useful cannot be cooperated. considered to have The defendant did have relevant given and useful information that he could have to law enforce- personnel ment at the time of his arrest or conviction and chose Stewart Therefore, cannot be information. the defendant not to cooperated with law enforcement. considered to have useful information does not limit the relevant or 3. The statute to information with law enforcement *2 prisoner prisoner convicted. A the crime for which the was about provided proving all the that he or she has bears the bturden of pick possesses cannot and he or she about a crime and information prepared to disclose. information he or she is choose what prisoner, purposes that a 4. sufficient for of the statute It is not defendant, willing allege that he or she would be like the cooperate in the future. “Cooperation” purposes of the statute includes conduct 5. working personnel amounting for or with law enforcement purpose, providing useful or relevant informa- toward a common enforcement, establishing although prisoner tion to law or had, provided any he or she and it law enforcement information useful, any prisoner not to be or never had turned out relevant provide. alleged relevant or useful information to The defendant’s evidence, intimidating hiding destroying actions of not or not witnesses, fleeing prosecution, being courteous to to avoid investigating cooperation officers do not amount with law enforcement. initially showing, by prisoner 6. A has the burden of affidavit or
otherwise,
already cooperated
that he or she has
enforce-
with law
ment
or she
he or she had to
or that he
enforcement,
filing
judicial
but
time before
the motion for
at no
cooperation
he or
or
certification of
did
she have
relevant
useful
sentencing
information to
The
court
then have the
would
evidentiary hearing
discretion to conduct an
to determine whether
prisoner
court,
reviewing
if the
after
evidence,
genuine
concludes that a
and material factual issue exists
regarding
prisoner cooperated.
The defendant has not
whether
initially showing
met his burden of
that he has
with law
enforcement; therefore,
evidentiary hearing.
he is not entitled to an
Matelic,
App (2001),
opinions
People
7. The
v
249 Mich
1
Cardenas,
(2004),
App
Mich
must be overruled to
they
opinion.
the extent that
conflict
with
Markman, concurring,
separately to set forth two
Justice
wrote
First,
majority
disagreed
areas of concern.
he
that MCL
791.234(10),
“prisoner
which states that a
is considered to have
cooperated with law enforcement
if the court determines on the
prisoner
no
or
information to
record that the
had
provide,” requires
to have
some
Affirmed. Eligibility —Expedited Cooperation 1. Parole Parole — with Law Enforce- ment. prisoner’s cooperation enforcement, A purposes of a motion for determination of 791.234(10),may occur at time before the motion is filed and parole; pledge is released on of future cooperation. does not constitute *3 2. Parole Eligibility —Expedited Cooperation Parole — with Law Enforce- ment. prisoner may
A cooperated be considered to have with law enforce- purposes judicial ment for of a motion for determination of cooperation prisoner under engaged where the in conduct where he or she worked with law enforcement toward purpose, provided a common useful or relevant information to law enforcement, although prisoner provided or establishes that any had, law enforcement information he or she and it turned out useful, prisoner not to be or relevant never had relevant or provide; prisoner useful a who never information or who had relevant or useful information but chose may not to it while it was relevant or useful not be cooperated. considered to have Cox, Michael A. Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, General, Solicitor Thomas, Michael D. Prosecuting At- Boes, torney, and Janet M. John T Horiszny, and A. Best, George II, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the people. Stewart for the defendant. A. Blanchard
Carolyn Amicus Curiae: Sauter, III, President, L. Dunnings Jeffrey
Stuart J. Worden, Attorney, and William M. Senior Prosecuting Prosecuting Attorney, for the Prosecuting Assistant Michigan. Attorneys Association WEAVER, statutory one interpreta- J. This case is 791.234(10), prisoner may apply tion. Under MCL a for judicial cooperation. prisoner a certificate of If the is enforcement, found to have then eligible years is sooner than prisoner parole 2.5 (1) otherwise. The are: when the questions presented occur, and prisoner’s cooperation must when court may cooperation make determination that has oc- (2) curred; what constitutes “cooperation” 791.234(10), and actions met that whether defendant’s (3) standard; and whether this case should be remanded evidentiary hearing to the circuit court for an to deter- mine whether defendant has within the meaning of the statute. hold that a occur at prisoner’s cooperation may parole. time before the is released on But of a filing must occur before the motion cooperation. Similarly, determination of no limits on when a court make a imposes
statute determination that occurred. engages means that a in con-
Cooperation working duct where the with law enforce- or purpose, provides ment for common enforcement, establishes *4 although the law enforcement prisoner provided had, information he or she and it turned out not to be useful, relevant or the never had 472 MICH 624 A or useful information to who had provide relevant or useful information to and chose not information, however, cannot be consid- ered to have with law enforcement. standards, Under these defendant did not meet his of initially showing, by otherwise, burden affidavit or that he had with law enforcement. Accord- ingly, evidentiary defendant is not entitled to an hear- ing. Matelic, the 1;
To
extent that
v
249 Mich
People
App
(2001),
Cardenas,
motion for certification of cooperation.
I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY The police intercepted package at cocaine the Saginaw office of United Parcel Service. The police set up surveillance at the house to which the package was addressed and had a officer deliver police package. Harrell, codefendant, David signed package. for the A later, police short time officers raided the house. Harrell told police that defendant asked him if defendant packages could have delivered house, to Harrell’s that three or packages four had been delivered 1994. Harrell stated that defendant had come to the house Bryant Fields, earlier with and that defendant had said picking package that Fields would be up. During raid, Fields came to the pick up package. house to Fields, the police they When arrested found two rocks of cocaine wrapped green pager. Fields $50 stated that the pager belonged to the man for whom he was picking up package; Harrell said that the pager looked like the one that defendant carried. During *5 629 v Stewart ' Opinion of the Court raid, times, off three defen- pager displaying went originated phone package dant’s home number. Pomona, California, and there were several calls made phone from defendant’s home Pomona. trial, convicted of
Following jury defendant was grams intent to deliver over 650 of possession with 333.7401(2)(a)(i), cocaine, conspiracy MCL to com- possession grams mit with intent to deliver over 650 of 750.157a(a). cocaine, At the time MCL that defendant 1995, was convicted sentenced MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(i) provided that an individual found guilty possessing of with the intent to deliver over 650 of cocaine grams mandatory would receive sentence of imprisonment. Further, life there no possibility was parole for an individual sentenced to a life mandatory major sentence “for a controlled of- substance 791.234(4).1 Consequently, fense ....” MCL defendant was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility parole.
In years sentenced, three after defendant was Legislature revised statutes. The revisions re- mandatory moved the life for those con- imprisonment possession victed of with intent to deliver over 650 grams replaced punishment of cocaine and with “life years years.” term of but not less than 20 333.7401(2)(a)(i). MCL The revisions further that such an offender eligible parole would be for after (if twenty years either the offender “has another con- crime”) viction for a years’ impris- serious or after 17.5 (if onment the offender “does not have another convic- .”). 791.234(6). tion for a serious crime ... These same 791.234(10), amendments also created MCL permits which an offender possession convicted of The substance of MCL is now contained in MCL Mich 624 grams intent to distribute over 650 of cocaine to be if the offender eligible parole years 2.5 earlier “cooperated found to have with law enforcement....” 333.7401(2)(a)(i), Under MCL defendant found was eligible years’ imprisonment. to be after 17.5 subsequently petitioned Defendant to be certified as enforcement having cooperated with law 791.234(10). The trial court denied request, stating:
The Defendant states that he had no relevant or useful *6 previ- to law enforcement officers ously.Additionally, “ready willing he states that he is proffer any may relevant or useful information that he have, He, however, allege [”] without undue haste. fails to how he have or will useful information for law approximately eight years enforcement officials after his facts, arrest. The Court finds that due to a lack of it cannot cooperation. enter an order of sought Defendant leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeals denied delayed application appeal. Unpublished order, 21, leave to May entered (Docket 243562). 2003 No.
This Court then granted defendant leave to appeal, asking parties the the following: address
(1) “cooperation” What constitutes purpose of 791.234(10), satisfy MCL and did defendant’s actions (2) 791.234(10) requirement? tempo Does MCL contain a (3) ral limitation on when must occur? Does temporal MCL contain a limitation on when a may court make determination that oc (4) Matelic, People App (2001), curred? Was v 294 Mich 1 decided?[2](5) properly Should this case be remanded to the Saginaw evidentiary hearing Circuit Court for an to deter- 2 People largely This issue is now irrelevant because v Matelic was Cardenas, by panel People 511; App in overruled conflict v 263 Mich 688 People 631 v Stewart the mean
mine whether defendant has
within
791.234(10)?
Stewart,
ing
[People v
II. OF REVIEW STANDARD of MCL interpretation This case involves statutory questions interpre We review Jones, 301, 304; tation de v 467 Mich 651 novo. (2002). The in primary goal construing NW2d 906 give Legisla is “to effect to the intent of the statute 396, 411; ture.” In re MCI Telecom 460 Mich Complaint, (1999), by examining begin plain NW2d 325, 461 Mich language People Morey, statute. (1999). 330; 603 NW2d
III. ANALYSIS
issue,
791.234(10),
at
provides:
The statute
MCL
office,
sentencing judge,
If the
or
or her
his
successor
determines on
record that a
described
(6)
imprisonment
subsection
sentenced to
for life for vio-
7401(2)(a)(i)
lating
conspiring
to violate
of the
section
code,
333.7401,
public health
1978 PA
enforcement,
subject
jurisdiction
board and
be released on
*7
(6),
years
parole
provided in
as
subsection
earlier than
2-V2
(6).
pris-
the time
in
otherwise indicated
subsection
oner is considered to have
with law enforce-
ment
if the court determines on the record that
the
had
no relevant
The court
not make a determination that the
shall
cooperate
enforcement
failed or refused to
on
grounds
or her
that the defendant exercised his
constitu-
by jury.
right
tional
to trial
If the court determines at
NW2d
granting leave to
(2004),
appeal
convened
was entered.
pursuant
to MCR
7.215(J)
after
the order
A temporal The first issue we must address is what 791.234(10) imposes limits MCL on when must occur and when a court make a determina- tion that cooperation occurred. agree with the conflict in panel
We Cardenas the only temporal places that limitation the statute on a prisoner’s cooperation is that the must occur before the of a motion filing determi- limitation, nation of cooperation. Other than that cooperation may occur at time the prisoner before is released on parole. Specifically, agree we with the following reasoning by Judge set out his WILDER partial by dissent Matelic and adopted Cardenas panel: conflict
“Giving phrases cooperated’ cooper- ‘has and ‘have then, plain meaning, ated’ their Legis- it is clear that the prisoner’s cooperation lature intended that the must have occurred at time prisoner’s application some before the Similarly, release under MCL phrase ‘had no provide’, relevant or useful information to given plain meaning when its and considered in relation to present perfect cooperated,’ tense clause ‘have ex- presses Legislature’s intent that must have lacked information prisoner’s application before the 791.234(10), for treatment under MCL in order to be found [Cardenas, cooperated.” as a matter of law to supra have at Matelic, quoting supra 31-32.] at conclude that the imposes also statute no limits on when a court may make a determination cooperation occurred. The statute refers to the sentenc- *8 People v Stewart Opinion of the Court ing judge judge’s making or that successor office determination of cooperation: office, sentencing judge,
If the or his or her successor in prisoner cooper- determines on the record that a ... has 791.234(10).] [MCL ated with law enforcement.... statutory language judge may The that a successor finding make a indicates that there can finding be cases where such and would be made sentencing. statute, after Under the language judge may make the determination that a prisoner has cooperated at time before an order of is entered.
B
The next
to consider
question
is what constitutes
for the
“cooperation”
purpose of MCL
specifically provides:
prisoner
statute
“The
cooperated
considered to have
with law enforcement
if
the court determines on the record
that
had no relevant or useful
provide.”
added).
(emphasis
This
of the past
use
tense, “had,”
indicates
defendant must at no time
information,
have had
relevant or
merely
useful
that any
longer
information he once had is no
or
useful. We hold that a
who has
law enforcement
information that was found to be
neither useful nor relevant can be considered to have
if that prisoner
with law enforcement
never
had
or
any relevant
useful information to
But
never
who
information or who
provide
had relevant or useful information to
and chose
Further, despite protestations of inno- cence, defendant was convicted of in- possession with tent of grams conspiracy to deliver over 650 cocaine and to commit intent possession with deliver over 650 grams of cocaine. We note that MCL applies only to who have been prisoners violating convicted of conspiring 333.7401(2)(a)(i), or to violate MCL which prohibits manufacturing, creating, delivering, pos- or sessing manufacture, create, intent to or deliver a schedule 1 or controlled that in an substance amount grams presumed of 650 or more. It be of of convicted one these crimes would have following relevant or useful information for law prisoner got drug, enforcement: where the how he it, it, he or processed she how she intended to deliver v Stewart Opinion Court and to whom he or she intended to deliver it. On the convictions, basis of defendant’s and the facts sur- them, rounding we conclude that defendant did have relevant or useful information that he could have given to law enforcement at the time of his arrest or convic- tion.
Defendant could have disclosed to the police name the person who shipped him, the cocaine to names other people drug ring, involved he planning how was drugs. distribute the At the time of conviction, defendant’s arrest or this informa- tion would have been relevant or useful. Because defen- dant had relevant or useful chose not to provide information, defendant cannot be considered to have cooperated with law enforcement.
Cooperation can also include providing useful or information to law enforcement. MCL 791.234(10) states that prisoner “[t]he is considered to have cooperated with law enforcement if the court determines on the record that had no relevant or useful information to provide.” The clear implication is that a prisoner is also considered to have cooperated with law enforcement if has provided relevant or useful information. The bears the burden of that he proving or she all the information he or she possesses crime; about a the prisoner pick cannot and choose what information he or prepared she is to disclose.
We note that the statute does not limit the relevant or useful information to information about the crime for which the prisoner was If convicted. a prisoner who was convicted of possession with intent to deliver over Mich 624 op Opinion the Court had relevant or useful of cocaine grams information to law enforce- murder, providing
on a cooperation. ment could be to have that he should be found alleges Defendant to relevant and willing because he is in the future. information to law enforcement of in his for certification petition Defendant’s statement to “ready willing proffer that he was may have, information that he any relevant or useful haste,” cooperation. an offer of future without undue is 111(A) But, part opinion, we stated in as must have occurred before prisoner’s cooperation It for certification of is filed. petition allege for defendant that he would be sufficient in the future. willing cooperate
Ill of his Finally, alleges defendant that on the basis arrest, following his he should be conduct before and with law enforcement. “Co- found have 1) to act or together; is defined as “to work operate” another or others for a common together work with one Col- Dictionary, New World Second purpose.” Webster’s statute, in light coop- Edition. lege Considered in a participating eration would include conduct such as drug buy sting operation, engaging controlled or a other conduct to work with law enforcement some The trial deter- goal.3 judge a common would toward mine, in each individual on the basis of the evidence conduct, providing rather than 3 Thediscussion whether
information, can constitute dicta, alleged on the the defendant in this case not because part his he should be found to have basis of certain conduct on cooperated with law enforcement. v Stewart Opinion Court case, whether the prisoner cooperated had within the 791.234(10). meaning of MCL Defendant asserts that he should be found to have law enforcement on the basis following conduct: destroy
[Defendant did not endeavor to hide or evi- arrest; dence after co-defendants[’] his and he did not tamper with or intimidate witnesses. Defendant not did prosecution flee to prior avoid to during his arrest nor interval between his release on bond subsequent polite conviction. At all times Defendant was and courteous investigating officers and officers of the [Defen- court. 6, 2002, August dant’s support brief in of motion for cooperation, certification of p 6.] But alleged conduct does not constitute cooperation under the statute. Defendant’s actions not hiding evidence, or destroying not intimidating witnesses, fleeing prosecution, avoid being courteous to the investigating did officers not amount to working with law enforcement for a common pur- pose. Defendant refrained from impeding law enforce- ment personnel purpose, their but nothing did work toward that purpose with the law enforcement personnel.
c The final question concerns when is en- titled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the prisoner has cooperated within the meaning of MCL agree with the Cardenas panel conflict that the prisoner has the burden of initially showing, by affida- otherwise, vit or that he or she already with law enforcement or that he or she provided any information he or enforcement, she had to law but at no *12 Mich 624 Concurring by Opinion J. Markman, have the motion did he or she filing time before The sentenc- information to provide. or useful to conduct then have the discretion court would ing evidence, in the reviewing after hearing such and material factual genuine it concludes that a event prisoner cooperated. regarding issue exists whether Here, alleged found that defendant’s already we have defendant has cooperation; conduct did not constitute he useful or relevant alleged provided not has that defendant information; and we have concluded he to have because cooperated cannot be considered he had or relevant information that previously did to the Defendant has not met his police. initially showing cooperated that he has with burden and, therefore, to an enforcement is not entitled law evidentiary hearing.
IV CONCLUSION denying affirm trial court’s order cooperation. certification of motion for Taylor, C.J., Cavanagh, Young, Corrigan, JJ., J. WEAVER, concurred with I (concurring). agree majority J. with
MARKMAN, met establishing that defendant has not his burden of enforcement, and, thus, that he cooperated I with affirmance of the trial court’s order agree its coopera- defendant’s motion for certification of denying I to set forth two areas of concern. separately tion. write First, majority I with the that “a disagree . . . cannot who never be to have with law enforcement.” considered Ante at 633-634. While this be reasonable as policy, simply matter of it is inconsistent with v Stewart by Concurring Opinion Markman, J. direction of the Legislature. states that a “prisoner is considered to have if enforcement the court determines on the record that the had no relevant or useful information to provide.” majority appends to the Legislature’s definition the requirement that a prisoner must further have some information to law enforcement. It thus adds language to the statute that is not there. IWhile can conceive of few instances which a silent prisoner will ever be satisfy able to his burdens under statute, I *13 disagree nonetheless with the majority’s substitution of its own definition of “cooperation” for that of Legislature. the
Second, I address, would not dictum, in as the majority does, whether “cooperation” under MCL conduct “include[s] such as in participating drug controlled buy or a sting operation,” and whether “cooperation” pertains to providing informa- tion about crimes unrelated to the crime for which the prisoner has been convicted. Ante at 636.1 Perhaps precisely it dictum, because is and because these mat- ters have not been by briefed the I parties, find the majority’s discussion to cursory be and insufficiently respectful of the fact that may there be alternative, plausible 791.234(10). understandings of MCL Again, the majority sets forth a reasonable policy, but it fails to puzzled by I majority’s am the assertion that its discussion of these matters does not prosecutor constitute dictum. Ante at 636 n 3. The has argued “cooperate” not by failing that defendant did participate not drug buy, argued controlled contrary. defendant has not to the And prosecutor argued the “cooperate” by not that defendant did not failing provide crime, information about an unrelated and defendant argued contrary. has not to the That defendant has asserted one form of “cooperation” namely, conduct as police, his failure to resist the an — argument correctly rejected by absurd majority properly the not —does majority the every allow to decide whether other conceivable form of “cooperation.” “conduct” constitutes Mich 624 by Opinion Kelly, J. by policy compelled is explain why such
adequately dictum, and a case await I would avoid statute. thoroughly, more explored can these issues be which setting. in a more relevant only). in result I concur that oconcurring J. KELLY, coopera- a certificate of qualify defendant did crucial However, aspects several disagree I tion. of MCL majority’s interpretation that, requirement majority opinion creates credit for eligible to be law enforcement 791.234(10), must a crime. The he has about with all the information Moreover, I requirement. not contain this statute does that did not intend Legislature believe it. to include interpreted statute should be less than might prisoner providing One reflect that a could about a crime possesses all the information he That law enforcement. very helpful be nonetheless chose to confer why Legislature explain using general early eligibility such benefit of if the the benefits to be conferred permitted terms. It with law enforce- “cooperated shown to have prisoner is ment,” indicating from what consti- and it refrained enough. much cooperation and how tutes *14 to limit Moreover, Legislature chose not information prisoners who statute’s benefit Rather, that the specified it that is relevant and useful. found to have may be he had if the court determines that enforcement even or useful no relevant left it to the Legislature pointedly coopera- to determine how much judge
discretion early parole to earn the benefit tion is sufficient eligibility. v Stewart Opinion by J. Kelly, reasons,
For these I concur only the result of Justice Weaver’s majority opinion.