People v. Smith

13 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cinpak

    No. 348187 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020)

    We review de novo a trial court's statutory interpretation of its power to dismiss under MCL 771.1. See People v Smith, 496 Mich 133, 140-141; 852 NW2d 127 (2014) (interpreting MCL 771.1(2) and its effect on the trial court's jurisdiction to sentence). MCL 771.1, the statute at the heart of this case, governs delayed sentencing in criminal matters as follows:

  2. Doe v. Aena Pub. Sch. Dist.

    SC 165441 (Mich. Jul. 29, 2024)

    As we often state, "[w]e interpret statutes to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent, and in doing so we focus on the statute's text." Clam Lake Twp, 500 Mich. at 373. See also People v Smith, 496 Mich. 133, 138; 852 N.W.2d 127, 131 (2014) ("The words of a statute are the most reliable indicator of the Legislature's intent and should be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning and the context within which they are used in the statute.").

  3. In re Baughman

    No. 355875 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2021)

    A published opinion of this Court has precedential effect under the rule of stare decisis and binds lower courts and tribunals. MCR 7.215(C)(2); see People v Smith, 496 Mich. 133, 140 n 17; 852 N.W.2d 127 (2014). Similarly, published opinions issued on or after November 1, 1990, bind subsequent panels of this Court.

  4. People v. Shaw

    No. 346364 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 7, 2020)

    A published opinion of this Court has precedential effect under the rule of stare decisis and binds lower courts and tribunals. MCR 7.215(C)(2); see People v Smith, 496 Mich 133, 140 n 17; 852 NW2d 127 (2014). Furthermore, published opinions issued on or after November 1, 1990, also bind subsequent panels of this Court.

  5. People v. T J Diehl (In re Diehl)

    329 Mich. App. 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 20 times

    Accordingly, the trial court did not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. The prosecution relies on People v. Smith , 496 Mich. 133, 141-142, 852 N.W.2d 127 (2014), in arguing that the trial court impermissibly "stepped into the role of the prosecutor and, without a scintilla of valid legal authority, dismissed these two cases" in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. In Smith , our Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a criminal case after the defendant pleaded to the charges, holding, in relevant part:

  6. People v. T. J. D. (In re D.)

    No. 345672 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2019)

    Accordingly, the trial court did not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. The prosecution relies on People v Smith, 496 Mich 133, 141-142; 852 NW2d 127 (2014), in arguing that the trial court impermissibly "stepped into the role of the prosecutor and, without a scintilla of valid legal authority, dismissed these two cases" in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. In Smith, our Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a criminal case after the defendant pleaded to the charges, holding, in relevant part:

  7. Sullivan v. Sullivan

    No. 330543 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 17, 2018)

    However, the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded proceedings to a different judge of its own volition, without even discussing any motions below or arguments on appeal. See People v Smith, 496 Mich 133, 144; 852 NW2d 127 (2014) (remanding a criminal case to a different judge because the initial judge demonstrated hostility towards the prosecution). In the divorce case of Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 163; 485 NW2d 893 (1992), the Court remanded the matter to a different judge, based on an appearance of impropriety, without discussing any motions made below.

  8. People v. Rickert

    No. 336956 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2018)

    Rickert also suggests that the trial court should have granted his motion for a continuance because he was willing to wait until the other judge returned from her maternity leave. While Rickert's willingness to waive his right to be sentenced within a reasonably prompt time was certainly a factor that the successor judge could consider, see People v Smith, 496 Mich 133, 142-143; 852 NW2d 127 (2014) (recognizing that a defendant's right to a speedy trial includes the right to be sentenced within a reasonably prompt time), it was not dispositive. The trial court retained broad discretion to control its docket and could properly consider its calendar management among other things when determining whether to grant a continuance.

  9. People v. McKinley

    No. 332519 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018)

    "It is axiomatic that the power to determine whether to charge a defendant and what charge should be brought is an executive power, which vests exclusively in the prosecutor." People v Smith, 496 Mich 133, 141; 852 NW2d 127 (2014). "Prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding under which statute they will prosecute a defendant, even if more than one statute is applicable."

  10. Bhama v. Mansharamani (In re Estate of Mansharamani)

    No. 338045 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2017)

    Any allegations of criminal activity should be directed to the police or a prosecutor. See People v Smith, 496 Mich 133, 141; 852 NW2d 127 (2014) ("It is axiomatic that the power to determine whether to charge a defendant and what charge should be brought is an executive power, which vests exclusively in the prosecutor."). And any request for professional discipline against an attorney should be directed to the Attorney Grievance Commission rather than this Court.