Source: http://www.wnj.com/Blogs/Appellate/July-2015
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:43:30+00:00

Document:
In People v. Lockridge, No. 149073, the Michigan Supreme Court declared the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional as they are currently used. The Court held that, based on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), it violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to base a minimum sentence guidelines calculation on facts not admitted by a defendant or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that, for the application of the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines to be constitutional, (1) MCL 769.34(2) must be severed to the extent that it imposes a mandatory minimum sentence based on facts not admitted by the defendant or found by a jury; (2) the requirement under MCL 769.34(3) that sentencing judges articulate substantial and compelling reasons for departing from the guidelines range must be struck down; (3) the sentencing guidelines must be advisory only. The court held that trial courts, however, must still calculate and consider the guidelines range for each defendant as part of its sentencing decision.
In Denhof v. Challa, No. 321862, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the Ottawa Country Friend of the Court (FOC), was shielded from liability on the basis of quasi-judicial, absolute immunity.
In People v. McKerchie, No. 321073, the Michigan Court of Appeals clarified that a defendant who escapes from a facility, where he was placed as a condition of his parole, can be found guilty of both a parole violation and a separate charge of prison escape under MCL 750.193. In reaching this conclusion, the Court held that MCL 750.193(3) does not provide parolees with immunity from prosecution for prison escape. Rather, the statute simply requires the prosecutor to prove all elements of the crime (prison escape), instead of merely relying on the parole violation as the sole basis for prosecution under MCL 750.193.
In People v. Jackson, No. 149798, the Michigan Supreme Court held that there is no res gestae exception for Michigan Rule of Evidence (“MRE”) 404(b). Accordingly, the trial court improperly admitted testimony from the victim’s aunt who testified at trial that defendant had engaged in prior sexual conduct with underage parishioners. However, because the Supreme Court held that the improper introduction of the evidence was not outcome determinative, defendant was not entitled to a new trial.
In Ionia Public Schools v. Ionia Education Association, No. 321728, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that, under the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA), MCL 423.201 et seq., teacher placement is a “prohibited subject of bargaining” with regard to collective bargaining.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.