e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 85900
Opinion Date : 06/08/2026
e-Journal Date : 06/09/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Jones v. Chippewa Circuit Court Judge
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Young, Borrello, and Trebilcock
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus; The trial court’s jurisdiction; Lack of a probable cause conference; MCL 766.4; MCR 6.108; People v Stanley (Unpub); Comparison to the lack of a preliminary exam; People v Robinson

Summary

Holding that the lack of a probable cause conference does not create a jurisdictional defect, the court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner pled nolo contendere to armed robbery in 2016. In his petition, he argued that he was entitled to a writ because he did not receive a probable cause conference in his underlying criminal prosecution and this deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. On appeal, the court found it was unnecessary to determine whether a probable cause conference was actually conducted because petitioner failed to establish “that the failure to do so created any jurisdictional defects.” While he suggested that one was required to preserve his constitutional rights, he did not support his claim with legal authority. The court also found it instructive that the lack of a preliminary exam does not deprive a circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Although a judicial determination of probable cause is a prerequisite to keeping a suspect incarcerated following an arrest, neither a preliminary examination nor a probable cause conference is constitutionally required.” And the court rule concerning probable cause conferences, MCR 6.108, “gives no indication that its violation deprives a court of its prerogative to exercise jurisdiction.” A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived. Given that “MCR 6.108 expressly permits the waiver of a probable cause conference, it stands to reason that a violation of that rule does not create a jurisdictional defect.” Thus, the court concluded that, assuming a probable cause conference was not held, its absence “does not deprive the district court of its continuing jurisdiction over the case. Relatedly, the absence of a probable cause conference does not affect the jurisdiction of the circuit court once a defendant has been bound over for trial.”

Full PDF Opinion