From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Twomey

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 22, 1988
433 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)

Opinion

Docket Nos. 107928, 108243, 108303.

Decided November 22, 1988.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, and Gary M. Gabry, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

David A. Hoort, for defendant Twomey.

Patrick M. Duff, for defendants Bailey and Brock-Bey.

Before: MacKENZIE, P.J., and McDONALD and R. ROBINSON, JJ.

Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


Defendants appeal by leave granted orders entered April 6, 7, and 11, 1988, denying defendants' motions to dismiss charges based on the district court's failure to hold defendants' preliminary examinations within twelve days of their arraignments. We reverse.

Defendants' preliminary examinations were scheduled for February 2, 1988. In Ionia County, the district court schedules all examinations for Tuesday afternoons. Crimes arising outside the prison are to be examined at 1:00 P.M., and prison cases at 2:30 P.M.

On most days, there are sufficient waivers of examination, dismissals and plea bargaining that the full list is gone through. However, on February 2, six examinations were scheduled and several of the defendants demanded their statutory right to be examined. The court was unable to finish before its normal closing hour, and these examinations were therefore rescheduled. At the rescheduled examinations, defendants moved to dismiss for violation of the twelve-day rule, MCL 766.4; MSA 28.922. The motions were denied, the district court reciting the demand for examination by multiple defendants, causing "docket congestion," as good cause for the delay in holding examination. We disagree.

Simple docket congestion without a showing of unusual circumstances, cf. People v Asher, 32 Mich. App. 380; 189 N.W.2d 148 (1971), does not constitute "good cause" for adjournment of examinations beyond the twelve-day statutory time limit. The defendant's right to timely examination is superior to any question of the mere convenience of the public officers, and the examination should commence at once unless the accused asks for a delay. In the Matter of Peoples, 47 Mich. 626; 11 N.W. 413 (1882). Our review of the record in the instant case reveals a self-inflicted congested docket. We therefore find no "good cause" for the delay.

Reversed.


Summaries of

People v. Twomey

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 22, 1988
433 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Twomey

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v TWOMEY PEOPLE v BAILEY PEOPLE v BROCK-BEY

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 22, 1988

Citations

433 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
433 N.W.2d 418

Citing Cases

Sampson v. Vill. of Mackinaw City

Such a preliminary examination may only be adjourned or delayed without the consent of a defendant upon a…