Court Opinion

ID: 9670943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:28:32.287977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.321752
License: Public Domain

D. F. Walsh, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I respectfully disagree with my colleagues’ conclusion that the 180-day statute does not apply to the instant defendant. People v Hegwood, 109 Mich App 438; 311 NW2d 383 (1981); People v Moore, 96 Mich App 754; 293 NW2d 700 (1980). I am nonetheless persuaded that the statute was not violated in this case. The delay was 182 days; the arrest warrant was dated December 19, 1979, and defendant was brought to trial on June 18, 1980. Defendant was promptly arraigned in district court and waived preliminary examination. The docket entries indicate the filing of a "notice of taking police report” on January 8, 1980. The prosecutor filed the information on January 10 and the supplemental information on January 15. Circuit court arraignment was held January 16. Notice of the June trial date was sent out on May 14. On June 6, pursuant to the prosecutor’s peti*412tion, the court ordered that the attendance of an out-of-state prosecution witness be secured. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on June 12, before the 180-day period expired. Writs of habeas corpus ad testiñcandum were issued by the court on June 12 for three defense witnesses. Trial began on June 18.
In my opinion, the conduct of the prosecutor, who initiated this case promptly, did not evidence an intent not to bring the case to trial promptly; jurisdiction, therefore, was not lost. People v Hendershot, 357 Mich 300, 303; 98 NW2d 568 (1959).
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.