Court Opinion

ID: 9687097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:16:00.978258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.233551
License: Public Domain

*430Cavanagh, C.J.
(concurring). Although I agree with this Court’s decision, I would award defendant. sentence credit for the period of delay the Ohio correctional facility caused by failing to deliver the appropriate documents to the Michigan prosecutor.
MCL 780.131; MSA 28.969(1)1 governs charges filed against a defendant who already is incarcerated in a Michigan correctional institution. The statute, similar to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, requires the prosecutor to bring the defendant to trial within 180 days of receiving notice of where the defendant is incarcerated. When the defendant is incarcerated in Michigan, the statute requires the incarcerating institution to notify the prosecutor that the defendant is incarcerated in its facility. The iad, however, requires the defendant who is incarcerated outside Michigan to submit notice to the Michigan prosecutor, requesting disposition of the charges.
In People v Hill, 402 Mich 272, 280-281; 262 NW2d 641 (1978), this Court stated that the 180-day period for Michigan prisoners begins to run either when the prosecutor knows or should know *431of a charge against a Michigan state prisoner, or when the Department of Corrections knows or should know that charges have been filed against one of its inmates. The iad's 180-day period begins only when the prosecutor receives a defendant’s request for disposition of the charges. People v Fex, 439 Mich 117; 479 NW2d 625 (1992), aif’d 507 US —; 113 S Ct 1085; 122 L Ed 2d 406 (1993).
MCL 780.133; MSA 28.969(3)2 mandates dismissal of the charges against a defendant incarcerated in Michigan if the 180-day period is violated. The iad, article V(c), similarly requires dismissal of charges for violating the 180-day period.3
This Court promulgated MCR 6.004(D),4 however.*4325 Currently the remedy for violating the 180-day rule depends on who is responsible for failing to meet the deadline. MCR 6.004(D)(2) requires dismissal with prejudice if the prosecutor is responsible for not making a good-faith effort to meet the 180-day deadline. If the Department of Corrections is responsible for failing to notify the prosecutor that the defendant is incarcerated in a state prison, then the defendant is entitled only to sentence credit for the period of delay.
The iad, article 111(b), requires the sending state to promptly forward defendant’s request for disposition of charges to the appropriate Michigan prosecutor, but the iad does not provide a remedy when the sending state fails to comply. The iad remedy of dismissal is not available because the 180-day deadline does not commence until the Michigan prosecutor receives defendant’s request. *433I believe that if the Michigan defendant receives sentence credit for the period of delay resulting from the failure of the Department of Corrections to notify the prosecutor, then the out-of-state defendant should be accorded the same treatment when the sending state fails to forward defendant’s request to Michigan.6 Therefore, when the out-of-state defendant submits his request for disposition of Michigan charges to the sending state’s official, and that official causes delay in forwarding the request to the Michigan prosecutor, the defendant should receive sentence credit for the period of delay.
Accordingly, I would remand for the computation and award of appropriate sentence credit.
Levin and Mallett, JJ., concurred with Cavanagh, C.J._

 Whenever the department of corrections receives notice that there is pending in this state any untried warrant, indictment, information, or complaint setting forth against any inmate of a correctional facility of this state a criminal offense for which a prison sentence might be imposed'upon conviction, the inmate shall be brought to trial within 180 days after the department of corrections causes to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the warrant, indictment, information, or complaint is pending written notice of the place of imprisonment of the inmate and a request for final disposition of the warrant, indictment, information, or complaint. The request shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time or disciplinary credits earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the parole board relating to the prisoner. The written notice and statement shall be delivered by certified mail.

 In the event that, within the time limitation set forth in section 1 of this act, action is not commenced on the matter for which request for disposition was made, no court of this state shall any longer have jurisdiction thereof, nor shall the untried warrant, indictment, information or complaint be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.

 Article V(c) states:
If the appropriate authority shall refuse or fail to accept temporary custody of said person, or in the event that an action on the indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged is not brought to trial within the period provided in Article III or Article IV hereof, the appropriate court of the jurisdiction . . . shall enter an order dismissing the charges with prejudice .... [MCL 780.601; MSA 4.147(1).]

 MCR 6.004(D) states:
(D) Untried Charges Against State Prisoner.
(1) The 180-Day Rule. Except for crimes exempted by MCL 780.131(2); MSA 28.969(1)(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 *432knows 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 (l)(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 (l)(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.

 MCR 6.004(D) was adopted October 1, 1989, to modify People v Hill, supra, which addressed cases involving Michigan prisoners. See People v Taylor, 199 Mich App 549; 502 NW2d 348 (1993); People v Metzler, 193 Mich App 541, 549; 484 NW2d 695 (1992) (Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In Taylor, the Court of Appeals correctly recognized that MCR 6.004(D) was adopted by this Court and is not in conflict with the statutory provision regarding the 180-day rule. The court rule merely is a modification of our earlier interpretation of the statute addressed in Hill.

 Without sentence credit, article 111(b) of the iad would be meaningless. Providing sentence credit here is consistent with how this Court treats Michigan prisoners.