e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 74614
Opinion Date : 01/07/2021
e-Journal Date : 01/27/2021
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Searcy
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Murray, K.F. Kelly, and Stephens
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Mental health court eligibility; MCL 600.1093; MCL 600.1068(2); MCL 600.1091(1); People v Rydzewski; Whether the prosecution had veto power; Michigan Gun Owners, Inc v Ann Arbor Public Schs; Memorandum of understanding (MOU)

Summary

The court held that the trial court erred by failing to properly evaluate defendant for participation in the mental health court. He pled nolo contendere to three counts of breaking and entering (B & E), possession of burglar’s tools, two counts of malicious destruction of police or fire department property, felonious assault, and assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth habitual offender to 76 to 300 months for each B & E conviction and for possession of burglar’s tools, and to 76 to 180 months for each of his other convictions. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant “that the trial court’s preemption of a ‘preadmission screening and evaluation assessment’ to determine his eligibility for participation in the mental health court because of the prosecuting attorney’s refusal to consent to defendant’s participation in the mental health court” violated MCL 600.1093. It also agreed that, had the trial court properly evaluated him for participation, he would have been eligible. “The trial court’s policy of preempting a defendant’s preadmission evaluation for the mental health court because of the prosecuting attorney’s refusal to approve defendant’s participation violates the explicit language of MCL 600.1093, a point conceded by the prosecutor at oral argument before this Court.” Given that MCL 600.1093(1) provides sole discretion to the trial court “regarding defendant’s admission to the mental health court, and the MOU does not give the prosecuting attorney’s office a unilateral power to block defendant’s admission to the mental health court, the trial court had the discretion to conduct the preadmission screening and evaluation assessment before considering defendant’s application to participate in the mental health court.” The court vacated his sentences and remanded.

Full PDF Opinion