Opinion ID: 845991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: mcr 6.004(d)

Text: In addition to MCL 780.131, the Michigan Court Rules also codify the 180-day rule in MCR 6.004(D). Because the 180-day rule, as expressed in the pre-January 1, 2006, version of the court rule, may be violated even when there is no violation under the plain language of the statute, we must address whether defendant is entitled to relief under the court rule. We conclude that defendant is not entitled to relief under the court rule because the court rule must yield to the statute. At all times relevant to this case, MCR 6.004(D) provided: (D) Untried Charges Against State Prisoner. (1) The 180-Day Rule. Except for crimes exempted by MCL 780.131(2), the prosecutor must make a good faith effort to bring a criminal charge to trial within 180 days of either of the following: (a) the time from which the prosecutor knows that the person charged with the offense is incarcerated in a state prison or is detained in a local facility awaiting incarceration in a state prison, or (b) the time from which the Department of Corrections knows or has reason to know that a criminal charge is pending against a defendant incarcerated in a state prison or detained in a local facility awaiting incarceration in a state prison. For purposes of this subrule, a person is charged with a criminal offense if a warrant, complaint, or indictment has been issued against the person. (2) Remedy. In cases covered by subrule (1)(a), the defendant is entitled to have the charge dismissed with prejudice if the prosecutor fails to make a good-faith effort to bring the charge to trial within the 180-day period. When, in cases covered by subrule (1)(b), the prosecutor's failure to bring the charge to trial is attributable to lack of notice from the Department of Corrections, the defendant is entitled to sentence credit for the period of delay. Whenever the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial is violated, the defendant is entitled to dismissal of the charge with prejudice. [5] MCR 6.004(D) was adopted in 1989 to codify, with two exceptions, this Court's interpretation of the 180-day-rule statute in People v. Hill, 402 Mich. 272, 262 N.W.2d 641 (1978), People v. Hendershot, 357 Mich. 300, 98 N.W.2d 568 (1959), and dictum in People v. Castelli, 370 Mich. 147, 121 N.W.2d 438 (1963). We hold that this version of MCR 6.004(D) was invalid to the extent that it improperly deviated from the statutory language. This Court's holding in Hill, supra, and its dicta in Castelli, supra, along with the portion of the court rule implementing these holdings, improperly expanded the scope of the 180-day-rule statute by requiring the prosecutor to bring a defendant to trial within 180 days of the date that the Department of Corrections knew or had reason to know that a criminal charge was pending against the defendant. MCR 6.004(D)(1)(b). This language does not appear in the statute. The statutory trigger is notice to the prosecutor of the defendant's incarceration and a departmental request for final disposition of the pending charges. The statute does not trigger the running of the 180-day period when the Department of Corrections actually learns, much less should have learned, that criminal charges were pending against an incarcerated defendant. We decline to read such nonexistent language into the statute. American Federation of State, Co. & Muni Employees v. Detroit, 468 Mich. 388, 412, 662 N.W.2d 695 (2003). We overrule Hill, supra, and Castelli, supra, to the extent that they are inconsistent with MCL 780.131. We also give this decision limited retroactive effect. See Cornell, supra at 367, 646 N.W.2d 127. `If a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration . . . the [court] rule should yield.' McDougall v. Schanz, 461 Mich. 15, 30-31, 597 N.W.2d 148 (1999) (citation omitted). The preamendment version of MCR 6.004(D) is not purely a matter of court administration. Instead, this court rule both codified and modified this Court's interpretations of the statutory 180-day rule. MCR 6.004(D) does not solely attempt to `regulate the day-to-day procedural operations of the courts.' McDougall, supra at 32, 597 N.W.2d 148, quoting People v. McKenna, 196 Colo. 367, 372, 585 P.2d 275 (1978). As such, the court rule must yield to MCL 780.131.