People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek

Michigan Supreme Court

People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek

DecidedMarch 22, 2017

Docket152567

StatusPublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek (People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court 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. Daniel Horacek, (Mich. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

March 22, 2017 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr. Brian K. Zahra 152567 Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 152567 COA: 317527 Oakland CC: 2012-241894-FH DANIEL HORACEK, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of May 6, 2016, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address: (1) whether exigent circumstances authorized the officers’ warrantless entry into the defendant’s motel room, In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261, 271 (1993) (“The police must further establish the existence of an actual emergency on the basis of specific and objective facts indicating that immediate action is necessary to (1) prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, (2) protect the police officers or others, or (3) prevent the escape of a suspect.”) (citation omitted); see also People v Oliver, 417 Mich 366, 384 (1983); and (2) if a constitutional violation did occur, whether the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea, compare MCR 6.301(C)(2) with People v Reid, 420 Mich 326, 337 (1984). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. March 22, 2017 s0315 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

March 22, 2017 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr. Brian K. Zahra 152567 Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 152567 COA: 317527 Oakland CC: 2012-241894-FH DANIEL HORACEK, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of May 6, 2016, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address: (1) whether exigent circumstances authorized the officers’ warrantless entry into the defendant’s motel room, In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261, 271 (1993) (“The police must further establish the existence of an actual emergency on the basis of specific and objective facts indicating that immediate action is necessary to (1) prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, (2) protect the police officers or others, or (3) prevent the escape of a suspect.”) (citation omitted); see also People v Oliver, 417 Mich 366, 384 (1983); and (2) if a constitutional violation did occur, whether the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea, compare MCR 6.301(C)(2) with People v Reid, 420 Mich 326, 337 (1984). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. March 22, 2017 s0315 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-daniel-horacek-mich-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack