Case ID: mich-app_25/html/0188-01.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

PEOPLE v. CHAMBERS
    Criminal Law — Preliminary Examination — Transcript—Return op Examining Magistrate — Due Process.
    Transcripts of a preliminary examination are required by statute to be certified and returned by an examining magistrate to the clerk of the court during the term in the court having jurisdiction of the offense where the accused is bound to appear; where the transcript of the preliminary examination was not included with the return of the magistrate but was filed later within the term of the court and before trial this did not result in a violation of those statutes leading to a void or improper return or a violation of procedural due process (MCLA §§ 766.11, 766.15, 767.40).
    Reference por Points in Heaknote
    21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 442 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Macomb, George R. Deneweth, J.
    Submitted Division 2 June 5, 1970, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 7,747.)
    Decided July 1, 1970.
    Carl Chambers was convicted of armed robbery. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengo ski, Solicitor General, George N. Parris, Prosecuting Attorney, Thaddeus F. Hamer a, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Stephen F. Osinski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Bruce L. Monks, for defendant on appeal.
    
      Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Rood, JJ.
    
      
       Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant was found guilty by jury trial of armed robbery. MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.797). On appeal he claims violation of procedural due process in that the transcript of the examination was not included with the return of the magistrate. The transcript was filed later within the term of court.

No motion to quash the information nor objection to the court’s ruling was registered by the defendant.

Michigan criminal procedure statutes require that all examinations and recognizances taken by an examining magistrate must be certified and returned by him to the clerk of the court during term in the court having jurisdiction of the offense where the accused is bound to appear.

The information and examination record shall be certified and filed. The statutes do not require that the information and transcript must be filed at the same time, only that both be filed during the term of the court.

Piling the transcript at a later date but prior to trial did not result in a violation of statute leading to a void or improper return as contended by defendant.

In Dimmers v. Hillsdale Circuit Judge (1939), 289 Mich 482, cited by defendant, there was a clear violation of the statute because the stenographic transcript was not filed with the return and was never filed with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction.

There is no statutory provision requiring the unrequested furnishing of an information or transcript to defense counsel. The examination record was available and could have been obtained upon request. We find that the statutory regulations concerning certification and filing were not violated.

Affirmed. 
      
       CL 1948, § 766.11 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.929); CL 1948, § 766.15 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.933); CL 1948, § 767.40 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.980).