Opinion
SC: 163942 COA: 354647
07-22-2022
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelwin Dwayne EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of May 3, 2022, the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Johnson (Docket No. 163073). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted in Johnson on July 22, 2022, ––– Mich. ––––, 976 N.W.2d 862 (2022), the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii ) violates separation of powers by assigning the judicial branch " ‘tasks that are more properly accomplished by [the Legislature],’ " Mistretta v. United States , 488 U.S. 361, 383, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989), quoting Morrison v. Olson , 487 U.S. 654, 680-681, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (1988) ; see also Houseman v. Kent Circuit Judge , 58 Mich. 364, 367, 25 N.W. 369 (1885) ; (2) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii ) violates due process by creating a " ‘potential for bias’ " or an "objective risk of actual bias," Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. , 556 U.S. 868, 881, 886, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009), quoting Mayberry v. Pennsylvania , 400 U.S. 455, 465-466, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971) ; see also, e.g., Williams v. Pennsylvania , 579 U.S. 1, 8-9, 136 S.Ct. 1899, 195 L.Ed.2d 132 (2016) ; and (3) should we find MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii ) facially unconstitutional under either theory, what remedy follows. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).
We direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Johnson (Docket No. 163073 ).
The Michigan Senate and the Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan District Judges Association, the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Detroit Justice Center, and the Institute for Justice are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.