Source: http://www.wnj.com/Blogs/Appellate/February-2017
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:23:47+00:00

Document:
If a defendant pleads guilty and agrees to a sentence “at the low end” of the sentencing guidelines range, the defendant is entitled to a sentence under the properly scored guidelines range, even if counsel agrees to an incorrect, higher guidelines range, said the Court of Appeals in People v. Smith, No. 330075.
In Tyann Shelton v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, No 328473, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in holding an exclusionary provision that defendant's no-fault policy does not bar plaintiff's personal injury protection (PIP) claim. The defendant sought summary disposition based upon a fraud exclusion clause in its policy, asserting that plaintiff made fraudulent statements concerning her need for replacement services and so was excluded by the policy from all PIP benefits. The trial court granted summary disposition as to replacement services and denied the motion as to payment for medical services and from that ruling, defendant appeals by leave granted.
Union security agreements executed after the enactment of Michigan’s Right-to-Work law, but before its effective date, are unenforceable, held the Michigan Court of Appeals in Taylor School District, et al. v. Rhatigan, et al., No. 326128.
In People v. Traver, No. 154494, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to consider whether a trial court must read aloud jury instructions concerning the elements of charged offenses. The Court will also hear argument on several other related questions, including the proper jury instruction for a felony-firearm charge, whether a defendant waives any claims regarding improper jury instruction when the defendant’s attorney expresses satisfaction with the instructions at trial, and whether the Court of Appeals was correct to order a Ginther hearing in this circumstance.
Where an interrogation takes place is not all that matters when determining whether a criminal suspect must receive Miranda warnings. In People v. Barritt, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that questioning a suspect at a police station does not, by itself, require Miranda warnings. But if a suspect is brought to the police station in a cruiser, questioned for 90 minutes, denied access to a lawyer, never told that he was not under arrest, and implicitly threatened, the totality of the circumstances indicate custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.
Regardless of whether a criminal case involves judicial fact-finding, sentencing guidelines are always advisory, said the Court of Appeals in People v. Rice, No. 329502. Interpreting the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in People v. Lockridge, the Court held that a judge may always reduce a sentence beyond the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines.

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