-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2016

v No. 319998 Wayne Circuit Court DARRIN CRAWFORD, LC No. 13-007629-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: G LEICHER , P.J., and S AWYER and M URPHY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. In our original opinion in this matter, we affirmed defendant’ s convictions. People v Crawford , unpublished opinion per curiam, rel’d 10/13/2016. Thereafter , by order dated 7/26/2016, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to us with ins tructions to give further consideration to defendant’s cla im that the jury had not been s worn and to explain why we had failed to consider an amended trans cript that reflected that th e jury had, in fact, been sworn.

We addressed the second issue in an order dated 9/20/2016, whi ch also remanded this matter to the trial court for a settlement of the record. That order provided as follows:

On remand from our Supreme Court, this Court is directed to “g ive further consideration of the defendant’s contention that the jury was n ot sworn” and provide “an explanation why it [t his Court] failed to consider the amended transcript in concluding th at no oath was administered.”

The amended transcript filed wi th this Court does not contain any amended pages that reflect that an oath was administered. The only source of those amended pages is the attachment to the prosecutor’s motio n in the Supreme Court filed several months aft er this Court’s October 13, 2015 opinion was issued. According to that motion, the amended pages were actually attac hed to the end of a copy of the original transcript and it was labeled “amended t ranscript” and supplied to the parties. But, while the official record suppli ed to this Court and the Supreme Court does contain a full transcript labeled “Amend ed Transcript,” it does not contain those amended pages reflecting the jury being sworn, either in place of the original pages or appended to the end. Therefore, this Court could-2- not consider the amended pages in the amended transcript becaus e it has never been supplied to us. We can only speculate why those pages wer e omitted from the official transcript filed with this Court; and therefore, w e REMAND to the trial court for settlement of the record.

The trial court shall, within 14 days of the Clerk’s certifica tion of this order, settle the transcript dis crepancy in the official record that was provided to this Court by providing this Cour t with the location in the tra nscript or in the amended transcript where the oath was in fact given. If the tr ial court determines that the official record contains an incorrect amended transcri pt, the trial court shall order the court reporter to file a corrected transcript. If the trial court determines that the transcripts contained in the official recor d are correct, the trial court shall order that the record be recertified and forwarded to this Court for final resolution of this appeal.

We retain jurisdiction. This or der has immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2).

On remand, the trial court settled the record by finally provi ding this Court with the actual amended transcript, which reflects that the jury had, in fact, been sworn. In our original opinion we concluded that defe ndant’s convictions should be aff irmed despite the fact the jury had not been sworn. While it has now been established in the r ecord before us that the jury had actually been sworn, and while tha t would change the analysis o f the issue, it does not change the conclusion that defendant’s conv ictions are to be affirmed.

Affirmed.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ William B. Murphy