e-Journal Summary Search Details
 
State Bar of Michigan
home member area contact us


research & links

  e-Journal Summary
Opinion Date: 06/02/2011
e-Journal Date: 06/22/2011
Full Text Opinion

Practice Area(s):   Criminal Law

Issues: Motion for relief from judgment; Jurisdiction to accept the defendant's guilty plea; MCR 6.508(D); People v. New; MCL 712A.2(a)(1)(A); MCL 764.1f(1) & (2)(a); MCL 600.606(1); People v. Schneider; People v. Maxson
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: People v. Kiyoshk
e-Journal Number: 48977
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Shapiro, Fitzgerald, and Borrello

Since the defendant appeared to have been 13 years old at the time of the incident to which he pleaded guilty, the court agreed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take his guilty plea as to that count. Thus, the court reversed the trial court's order denying his motion for relief from judgment, vacated his plea, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of CSC I. He was charged in 2006 as an adult with four counts of CSC I involving his cousin. Count II, the count to which he pleaded guilty, alleged sexual intercourse occurring in 1999. Considering the relevant statutes and case law, the trial court properly had jurisdiction if the defendant was 14 years old when he allegedly committed the charged offenses. The court noted that there was no question he was 14 years old by 2000, when counts III and IV allegedly were committed. Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction over those alleged offenses. However, counts I and II were both listed as generally having occurred in 1999, during which there were only 8 days that defendant was 14 years old. While there was information suggesting that an incident occurred on New Year's Eve, when defendant would have been 14 years old, nothing in the recitation of facts indicated that sexual intercourse occurred. The only reference to sexual intercourse occurring in 1999 involved a date in July. Further, defendant did not admit at the time of the plea taking that he was 14 years old at the time of the alleged offense. "Because count II alleged sexual intercourse, and the only facts in the record indicate that the only sexual intercourse that occurred in 1999 happened in July, defendant appears to have been 13 years old at the time of the incident to which he pleaded guilty." However, since counts III and IV clearly arose after he turned 14, the trial court had jurisdiction over those counts and they may be reinstated on remand. If the prosecution seeks to reinstate count I, the trial court must make a factual determination as to defendant's age at the time the alleged actions occurred. If he was less than 14 years old at the time, count I shall be dismissed because family court jurisdiction over defendant's alleged actions ended when he turned 21. If the trial court determines that defendant was 14 years old at the relevant time, the case may proceed to trial on count I as well as counts III and IV.

Full Text Opinion

Search Again

     

 

follow us
Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on LinkedIn Follow Us on Twitter Follow the SBM Blog

 

©Copyright 2014

website links
Contact Us
Site Map
Website Privacy Statement PDF
Staff Links

SBM on the Mapcontact information
State Bar of Michigan
306 Townsend St
Lansing, MI 48933-2012
Phone: (517) 346-6300
Toll Free: (800) 968-1442
Fax: (517) 482-6248