People of Michigan v. Ryan Michael Bylsma

Michigan Supreme Court

People of Michigan v. Ryan Michael Bylsma

DecidedNovember 24, 2015

Docket148440

StatusPublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Ryan Michael Bylsma (People of Michigan v. Ryan Michael Bylsma) 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. Ryan Michael Bylsma, (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

November 24, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

148440 Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Joan L. Larsen, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 148440 COA: 317904 Kent CC: 10-011177-FH RYAN MICHAEL BYLSMA, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of June 11, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) and People v Tuttle (Docket No. 148971). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 27, 2015, 498 Mich 192 (2015), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the defendant, who possessed, cultivated, manufactured, or delivered marijuana to a patient or caregiver to whom he was not connected through the registration process of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., “may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).” MCL 333.26428(b). Cf., State v McQueen, 493 Mich 135, 156 ns 59 & 60 (2013). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court of Appeals together with the case of People v Overholt (Docket No. 149795), which we remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted by order of the same date, at such future session of the Court of Appeals as both cases are ready for submission.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

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. November 24, 2015 p1116 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

November 24, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

148440 Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Joan L. Larsen, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 148440 COA: 317904 Kent CC: 10-011177-FH RYAN MICHAEL BYLSMA, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of June 11, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) and People v Tuttle (Docket No. 148971). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 27, 2015, 498 Mich 192 (2015), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the defendant, who possessed, cultivated, manufactured, or delivered marijuana to a patient or caregiver to whom he was not connected through the registration process of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., “may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).” MCL 333.26428(b). Cf., State v McQueen, 493 Mich 135, 156 ns 59 & 60 (2013). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court of Appeals together with the case of People v Overholt (Docket No. 149795), which we remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted by order of the same date, at such future session of the Court of Appeals as both cases are ready for submission.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

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. November 24, 2015 p1116 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People of Michigan v. Ryan Michael Bylsma, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-ryan-michael-bylsma-mich-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack