Court Opinion

ID: 9739011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:07:11.908494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.645733
License: Public Domain

Doctoroff, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. In People v Rivera, 164 Mich App 670; 417 NW2d 569 (1987), the panel rejected the claim that People v New, 427 Mich 482; 398 NW2d 358 (1986), resolved the issue of whether a plea of guilty or nolo contendere waives a speedy trial issue. Relying upon People v Parshay, 104 Mich App 411; 304 NW2d 593 (1981), lv den 411 Mich 1081 (1981), People v Williams, 145 Mich App 614; 378 NW2d 769 (1985), United States v Freed, 688 F2d 24 (CA 6, 1982), and United States v Lee, 500 F2d 586 (CA 8, 1974), cert den 419 US 1003; 95 S Ct 322; 42 L Ed 2d 279 (1974), we held that a speedy trial claim is nonjurisdictional and, thus, *515waived by a defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Rivera, p 673. I would hold that, by his plea of guilty, defendant has waived his right to raise this issue in this Court.
Assuming, arguendo, that waiver was not an issue, I do not agree that this case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether due diligence was exercised. First, I agree with the concurrence by Judge Reilly that a twenty-seven-week delay should not be considered "unreasonable on its face.” Second, it is clear that defendant suffered no prejudice by the delay between the issuance of the bench warrant and its execution. People v Phillips, 109 Mich App 535, 540; 311 NW2d 301 (1981). Indeed, the delay inured to his benefit. Defendant was not incarcerated and he continued to carry on his life without incident or interruption during this period. On appeal, defendant admits that he was living at home and working in the area and makes no claim of prejudice.
Finally, according to information from the Michigan State Police, in May, 1989, there were over 24,000 outstanding felony warrants entered in lein. Of these, over 18,000 represented probation and parole violations. Many were for such crimes as homicide, kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, and armed robbery. There were similar numbers of outstanding warrants in the lein system when defendant’s warrant was issued. The primary goal of the police is to identify and apprehend persons wanted for violent felonies. Priority is given to those persons who have a high probability of committing future violent acts.
In this case, a bench warrant was issued against defendant for failure to report to his probation officer on a monthly basis as required by the order of probation imposed upon his conviction of mali*516cious destruction of property worth over $100. Given the almost impossible task which the police have to attempt to locate the over 24,000 outstanding felony offenders and those persons who have committed serious parole and probation violations and considering the nature of defendant’s violation, I would require no more of the police than that which was done in this case. It would be the height of folly to require from the police the same amount of effort to locate persons who have committed minor probation violations as they expend in their search for outstanding felony offenders who are dangerous to the community.
I would affirm.