Case ID: mich-app_11/html/0498-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF PORTAGE v. TIMMERMAN. SAME v. WENKE.
    1. Criminal Law — Appeal by Prosecutor.
    Appeal by the people in a criminal case requires leave from the court and is restricted in the kind of question appealable by statutory provision (CL 1948, § 770.12).
    2. Same — Right of Appeal — City Ordinance Violation.
    A city has no right of apjieal from a decision of a circuit court dismissing a prosecution for a city ordinance violation, and a motion by the defendant in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal will be granted (CL 1948, § 770.12).
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1, 2] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 268.
    Appeal from Kalamazoo, Yan Yalkenberg (Wade), J.
    Submitted Division 3 April 4, 1968, at Grand Rapids.
    (Docket Nos. 3,842, 3,843.)
    Decided May 28, 1968.
    Robert Timmerman and Dennis M. Wenke were convicted of being disorderly persons in violation of an ordinance of the city of Portage by the Portage municipal court. Defendants appealed. Dismissal granted by circuit court. City of Portage appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      John T. Peters, City Attorney, and Michael C. Gergely, Assistant City Attorney, for the City of Portage.
    
      Bauchham & Reed, for defendant Timmerman.
    
      Ford, Kriehard, Brown & Staton, for defendant Wenlre.
   Per Curiam.

Defendants were convicted for violating an ordinance of the city of Portage and were sentenced therefor. They appealed to the circuit court for the county of Kalamazoo where their motions to dismiss were granted for a reason not pertinent to present decision. The city appealed to this Court as of right and defendants moved to dismiss the appeal because the city had no appeal of right. By orders dated October 27, 1967, defendants’ motions to dismiss were continued until hearing on the merits. Such hearing has been had.

Although Const 1963, art 1, § 20, removes the accused from the restrictions of CL 1948, § 770.3 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1100) and grants a right of appeal, appeals by the city still require leave and are restricted by the provisions of CL 1948, § 770.12 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1109). The city has no right of appeal and defendants’ motions to dismiss these appeals are granted.

This disposition obviates discussion of the other questions raised.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred.