Opinion
358739 358742 358743
10-20-2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELANDO MONTANA PHILPOTS, Defendant-Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
Genesee Circuit Court LC Nos. 17-041902-FC; 17-042192-FC; 18-042996-FH
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and Borrello and Cameron, JJ.
Per Curiam.
In these consolidated appeals, defendant pleaded nolo contendere and was convicted of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-III), MCL 750.520d (multiple variables). Defendant now appeals by leave granted, arguing that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
People v Philpots, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 23, 2021 (Docket Nos. 358739, 358742, and 358743).
Defendant's CSC-III convictions were entered in Docket Nos. 358739 and 358742. In Docket No. 358743, defendant was convicted by guilty plea of possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v); however, he is not challenging that conviction in this appeal.
People v Philpots, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 9, 2021 (Docket No. 358739; People v Philpots, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 9, 2021 (Docket No. 358742); People v Philpots, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 9, 2021 (Docket No. 358743).
Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. A criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial is protected by both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution. U.S. Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20; see also People v Williams, 475 Mich. 245, 261; 716 N.W.2d 208 (2006). We review de novo as a question of constitutional law whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated. Williams, 475 Mich. at 250. The trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Id.
Here, defendant entered unconditional nolo contendere pleas to the CSC-III charges. "[A]n unconditional guilty plea waives a claim of violation of federal and Michigan constitutional rights to a speedy trial." People v Depifanio, 192 Mich.App. 257, 257; 480 N.W.2d 616 (1991); see also People v Lannom, 441 Mich. 490, 494; 490 N.W.2d 396 (1992) ("[A] plea of guilty waives a claim that a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated."); People v Scott, 275 Mich.App. 521, 524; 739 N.W.2d 702 (2007) (holding that the defendant, by pleading guilty, waived his appellate argument that he was denied his right to a speedy trial). "[A] plea of nolo contendere has the same effect upon a defendant's ability to raise an issue on appeal as does a plea of guilty." People v New, 427 Mich. 482, 493; 398 N.W.2d 358 (1986). Accordingly, defendant has waived appellate review of his speedy trial issue.
Although defendant contends on appeal that "[w]hether the plea waiver doctrine applies to constitutional claims of speedy trial violations remains an open question of law in Michigan," this question has been resolved by our Supreme Court. See Lannom, 441 Mich. at 494; New, 427 Mich. at 493. Clearly, this Court is bound by the precedent of our Supreme Court. People v Beasley, 239 Mich.App. 548, 556, 559; 609 N.W.2d 581 (2000). The question presented by defendant on appeal has also been resolved in published decisions of this Court that were issued after November 1, 1990; we are bound to follow Depifanio and Scott. MCR 7.215(J)(1). Hence, contrary to defendant's argument, this appeal does not present an open question of law in Michigan.
Affirmed.