People of Michigan v. Anthony Quinn Lavallis

Michigan Court of Appeals

People of Michigan v. Anthony Quinn Lavallis

DecidedMarch 5, 2019

Docket340829

StatusUnpublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Anthony Quinn Lavallis (People of Michigan v. Anthony Quinn Lavallis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of Michigan v. Anthony Quinn Lavallis, (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED March 5, 2019 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 340829 Oakland Circuit Court ANTHONY QUINN LAVALLIS, LC No. 2017-160175-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TUKEL, P.J., and SHAPIRO and GADOLA, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the district court declined the prosecutor’s request to bind defendant over. Pursuant to MCR 7.104(A), which is a jurisdictional rule, the prosecution had 21 days after entry of the order to claim an appeal of right. The prosecution failed to meet this deadline and, more than two months after its expiration, filed an application for leave to appeal.

The circuit court denied the late application for leave to appeal, finding “the length of the delay to be unreasonable. See MCR 7.105(G)(1).” That rule provides that the court may consider “the length of and the reasons for the delay in deciding whether to grant the application.” In its application to the circuit court, the prosecution stated that the delay resulted from an assistant prosecutor’s failure to refer the matter to the office’s appellate division.

A circuit court’s decision to deny a delayed application for leave to appeal is reviewed by this Court for an abuse of discretion. People v Flowers, 191 Mich App 169, 172; 477 NW2d 473 (1991). I see no basis to conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion. The reason for the delay was an error fully the responsibility of the prosecution and the delay in discovering that error was also fully the responsibility of the prosecution. A denial on the grounds that the “length of the delay was unreasonable” was well within the circuit court’s discretion.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

-1-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED March 5, 2019 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 340829 Oakland Circuit Court ANTHONY QUINN LAVALLIS, LC No. 2017-160175-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TUKEL, P.J., and SHAPIRO and GADOLA, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the district court declined the prosecutor’s request to bind defendant over. Pursuant to MCR 7.104(A), which is a jurisdictional rule, the prosecution had 21 days after entry of the order to claim an appeal of right. The prosecution failed to meet this deadline and, more than two months after its expiration, filed an application for leave to appeal.

The circuit court denied the late application for leave to appeal, finding “the length of the delay to be unreasonable. See MCR 7.105(G)(1).” That rule provides that the court may consider “the length of and the reasons for the delay in deciding whether to grant the application.” In its application to the circuit court, the prosecution stated that the delay resulted from an assistant prosecutor’s failure to refer the matter to the office’s appellate division.

A circuit court’s decision to deny a delayed application for leave to appeal is reviewed by this Court for an abuse of discretion. People v Flowers, 191 Mich App 169, 172; 477 NW2d 473 (1991). I see no basis to conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion. The reason for the delay was an error fully the responsibility of the prosecution and the delay in discovering that error was also fully the responsibility of the prosecution. A denial on the grounds that the “length of the delay was unreasonable” was well within the circuit court’s discretion.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

-1-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People of Michigan v. Anthony Quinn Lavallis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-anthony-quinn-lavallis-michctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack