People v. Dowell

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Dowell

502 N.W.2d 757, 199 Mich. App. 554

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 4, 1993

DocketDocket 152618

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 502 N.W.2d 757 (People v. Dowell) 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 v. Dowell, 502 N.W.2d 757, 199 Mich. App. 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with single counts of embezzlement from a financial institution, MCL 750.180; MSA 28.377, and embezzlement of more than $100 by an agent. MCL 750.174; MSA 28.371. Following a hearing held on May 18, 1992, the case against defendant was dismissed with prejudice when the prosecutor was unable to proceed to trial. The people now appeal as of right, and we affirm.

*555 The power in a criminal case to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v Bettistea, 173 Mich App 106, 124; 434 NW2d 138 (1989). In the present case, the trial court refused to grant the prosecutor’s request for a seventh continuance in this criminal matter that had been pending for more than two years. The prosecutor concedes that he was aware that the trial court would grant no further continuances, and the record reflects that the case was dismissed when the prosecutor was unable to proceed on the final scheduled trial date. After thorough review, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with single counts of embezzlement from a financial institution, MCL 750.180; MSA 28.377, and embezzlement of more than $100 by an agent. MCL 750.174; MSA 28.371. Following a hearing held on May 18, 1992, the case against defendant was dismissed with prejudice when the prosecutor was unable to proceed to trial. The people now appeal as of right, and we affirm.

*555 The power in a criminal case to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v Bettistea, 173 Mich App 106, 124; 434 NW2d 138 (1989). In the present case, the trial court refused to grant the prosecutor’s request for a seventh continuance in this criminal matter that had been pending for more than two years. The prosecutor concedes that he was aware that the trial court would grant no further continuances, and the record reflects that the case was dismissed when the prosecutor was unable to proceed on the final scheduled trial date. After thorough review, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 N.W.2d 757, 199 Mich. App. 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dowell-michctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack