Motion to adjourn to obtain a mental health evaluation; “Good cause”; Plea bargaining; Lafler v Cooper; Negligent delay; Jury composition; Fair-cross section of the community; People v Bryant; People v Williams; Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of intentional discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle, felonious assault, & felony-firearm; Self-defense; The Self-Defense Act; MCL 780.972(1); Correction of the judgment of sentence (JOS); Concurrent or consecutive sentencing for felony-firearm; Effect of a sentence to probation; People v Brown

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to adjourn trial to allow her the opportunity to obtain a mental health evaluation needed for plea negotiations. It also rejected her jury composition challenge and her sufficiency of the evidence claim based on self-defense. But her two-year prison term for her felony-firearm conviction was improperly ordered “to be served consecutively to the three-year term of probation for the underlying felonious assault conviction.” She was also convicted of intentional discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle and CCW. She sought the adjournment to “obtain her mental health evaluation, which was required to engage in plea negotiations for the felony-firearm charge.” The court held that she failed to show “good cause to warrant an adjournment.” Her motion “was not based on the assertion of a constitutional right. [She] argued that she had the right ‘to negotiate plea offers with the government,’ and ‘a right to have this [case] pre-tried.’ Criminal ‘defendants have no right to be offered a plea’ bargain.” And the constitutional right to present a defense “does not encompass a right to submit a deviation request and seek a plea offer.” Further, when the trial court inquired about “the possibility of a plea offer, the prosecutor advised” that none had been made. “Defendant also failed to establish that she was not negligent in waiting nearly 10 months to obtain the necessary mental health evaluation and submit a deviation request.” She also failed to establish the second and third prongs for her jury composition claim. As to the second prong, she “relied on the fact that, although Black individuals made up 13.7% of the” county’s population, “there were only two Black people in the venire from which her jury was selected. [She] failed to present any evidence showing the racial composition of jury pools and venires in Macomb County over time.” As to the third prong, she “relied on the fact that the juror selection process only draws from information derived from the Secretary of State. [She] offered no evidence that this jury-selection process results in a systematic exclusion of Black people from” the county jury pools. The court affirmed but remanded “for the limited purpose of correcting the” JOS to reflect that her 2-year prison term for felony-firearm and 3-year probation term for felonious assault are to run concurrently.