Opinion
SC: 165864 COA: 365672
07-26-2023
Matthew Thomas HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, Defendant-Appellee.
Order
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the June 13, 2023 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Welch, J. (concurring).
I concur in the decision to deny leave in this case because any action by this Court forcing the trial court to respond to plaintiff's pro per speedy trial motions would invariably delay the trial which is currently set to begin August 7, 2023. However, I write separately to raise concerns about the repeated delays in this case. Plaintiff's trial was originally set to begin April 27, 2020. Obviously, and understandably, the COVID-19 pandemic made this impossible. However, since that date, there have been eight would-be trial dates: July 19, 2021; August 25, 2021; November 29, 2021; February 23, 2022; June 24, 2022; August 22, 2022; October 31, 2022; and July 24, 2023. While plaintiff concedes that 20 weeks of delays are attributable to him, we lack a record as to the reason for the remaining delays.
If the August 7, 2023 trial is again adjourned, plaintiff may renew his speedy trial claim with the trial court in his criminal case. If the trial court fails to rule on that motion, plaintiff may again seek appellate review. I also note that our denial today does not prejudice plaintiff's ability to raise his speedy trial arguments on appeal if he is convicted.
Bolden, J. (concurring).
Plaintiff has not presented a legally cognizable claim in this civil lawsuit. However, denying leave does not prejudice plaintiff's ability to appeal a ruling on any motion already filed with the court in his criminal case.