SIERRA CLUB MACKINAC CHAPTER v. Department of Environmental Quality
766 N.W.2d 857
Mich.
2009
Check Treatment

PEOPLE v WILCOX

No. 136956

Michigan Supreme Court

June 23, 2009

483 Mich. 1094

CORRIGAN, J. (concurring in the result). Although I dissented in , I concur in the Court‘s decision to remand for resentencing. I conclude that resentencing is called for in this case for the fundamental reason that, in imposing a sentence that departs from the sentencing guidelines, the sentencing judge did not articulate her reasons with enough specificity “to allow for effective appellate review.” (“[H]owever it is articulated, the quality of the trial court‘s statement must be sufficient to allow for effective appellate review.“). For example, the sentencing judge observed that defendant lied to the court. His perjury may well constitute a substantial and compelling reason to depart. But because the judge did not describe the nature of the perjury or its effects on the underlying proceedings, we are unable to meaningfully evaluate whether her reasons were sufficient to support a departure.

Leave to Appeal Granted June 23, 2009:

PEOPLE V WILCOX, No. 136956. On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2008, judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is granted, limited to the issue whether the legislative sentencing guidelines, MCL 777.1 et seq., applied to the defendant‘s sentence and, if so, whether the defendant is entitled to be resentenced. The parties may wish to compare the result in this case with the result in .

We further order the St. Joseph Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order No. 2003-3, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint counsel to represent the defendant in this Court. Reported below: .

KELLY, C.J. I would also grant leave to appeal with respect to the defendant‘s challenge to the constitutionality of MCL 768.27a, for the reasons set forth in my dissenting statement in .

SIERRA CLUB MACKINAC CHAPTER v DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

No. 135898

Michigan Supreme Court

June 23, 2009

483 Mich. 1094

Leave to Appeal Denied June 23, 2009:

SIERRA CLUB MACKINAC CHAPTER v DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, No. 135898; Court of Appeals No. 269181.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). This case involves Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations concerning how Michigan‘s nearly 200 large animal farms, referred to as “concentrated animal-feeding operations (CAFOs)” must dispose of vast amounts of manure. This case produced a published Court of Appeals opinion with a dissent, and the DEQ now appeals, arguing that the Court of Appeals: (1) improperly reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency‘s approval of a state permit program, which it asserts is exclusively reserved for federal courts; and (2) mistakenly held that comprehensive nutrient management plans that must be submitted to the DEQ by CAFOs constituted an effluent limitation. The issues in this case are jurisprudentially significant and important for the agricultural economy of this state. Therefore, I would grant leave to appeal to consider these and other arguments.

CORRIGAN, J. I join the statement of Justice MARKMAN.

In re McBRIDE (DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES v McBRIDE)

No. 136988

Michigan Supreme Court

June 23, 2009

483 Mich. 1095

CORRIGAN, J. (dissenting). I would reverse the order terminating the respondent father‘s parental rights to his three sons. As the petitioner, Department of Human Services (DHS), concedes, respondent was unlawfully denied his right to counsel1 and his right, as an incarcerated party, to participate by telephone in proceedings concerning his children.2 Moreover, in light of these fundamental errors, the Michigan Attorney General (AG) and Solicitor General (SG) filed a brief amicus curiae3 urging that reversal is required by Michigan statutory law and court rules, as well as by federal constitutional law. I agree that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. I strenuously dissent from this Court‘s decisions to countermand its previous order directing oral arguments4 and to now deny leave to appeal altogether.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Respondent is the father of three sons who were 8, 10, and 13 years old, respectively, when these proceedings against their mother began in September 2006. Respondent has been incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (DOC) since 2004.5 His earliest possible release date from prison is June 30, 2015. Upon his incarceration, his sons remained in the care of his wife, and their mother, Susan McBride. Respondent

Notes

1
MCL 712A.17c; MCR 3.915(B)(1).
2
MCR 2.004.
3
The AG notes that the local prosecutor shall serve as the legal consultant to the DHS in child protective proceedings, MCL 712A.17(5), and the AG has supervisory authority over local prosecutors, MCL 14.30. The AG also has general duties to prosecute suits involving state departments, MCL 14.29, and, through the SG, to represent the state in this Court, MCL 14.28. But here the AG has elected to participate only as an amicus curiae as he takes a position adverse to that of the Bay County Prosecuting Attorney, who represents the DHS.
5
Respondent was convicted of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a minor. The victim was not one of respondent‘s children. Significantly, no statute requires termination of a parent‘s rights to his children merely on the basis of the nature of such convictions. MCL 712A.19b(3)(n)(i) permits termination if a parent commits certain offenses, including criminal sexual conduct, if the court also “determines that termination is in the child‘s best interests because