Opinion
363693
11-10-2022
LC No. 18-007081-01-FC
Noah P. Hood, Kristina Robinson Garrett Judges
ORDER
Anica Letica Presiding Judge
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, the Wayne Circuit Court's October 25, 2022 order denying the parties' joint request to adjourn trial is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to that court for further proceedings consistent with this order. The prosecution presented good cause for adjourning trial. See People v Lewis, 160 Mich.App. 20, 32; 408 N.W.2d 94 (1987) (holding that "good cause" for an adjournment existed when "the prosecutor's wife was ill"). And the defense also offered a valid "good cause" rationale for granting the requested adjournment, explaining that the trial court's failure to do so would have the paradoxical ultimate effect of delaying trial still further. See generally People v Williams, 475 Mich. 245, 261-262; 716 N.W.2d 208 (2006) (discussing the "speedy trial" rights afforded by the Sixth Amendment and Const 1963, art 1, § 20); People v Coy, 258 Mich.App. 1, 18; 669 N.W.2d 831 (2003) (noting that prejudice to a defendant's validly asserted constitutional right militates in favor of granting a requested adjournment). Moreover, the trial court's only stated reason for denying an adjournment was erroneous. See People v Jackson, 467 Mich. 272, 279 n 7; 650 N.W.2d 665 (2002) (observing that "docket-management considerations," such as "the desire . . . to expedite court dockets," are "not a sufficient reason to deny an otherwise proper request for a continuance") (quotation marks and citation omitted). Hence, the trial court necessarily abused its discretion by denying the requested adjournment. See People v Everett, 318 Mich.App. 511, 516; 899 N.W.2d 94 (2017).
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.