Court Opinion

ID: 9717284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:01:06.880492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.314337
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(concurring in result). I concur in the result, but write separately to indicate my reasons.
Failure to bring an inmate to trial on untried warrants within 180 days triggers application of the 180-day rule.1 At that point, the burden falls on the prosecution to justify the delay. I agree with that part of Judge Walsh’s concurring opinion in which he concludes that the 180-day period began to run in October, 1981, when defendant was extradited to Michigan from Arkansas.
1 accept as accurate the representation that the delay from October, 1981, to February 26, 1982, was no fault of the prosecution. But neither was it the fault of defendant. The purpose of the statute is to secure a speedy trial for inmates.2 Thus, good faith effort by the prosecutor does not necessarily stop the 180-day period from running.3
In the within case, the 180-day period would have expired in April, 1982. In March, 1982, defendant was arraigned and both a preliminary examination and a so-called calendar conference were *176held. When defendant moved to dismiss4 under the 180-day rule, the trial court granted dismissal on May 25, 1982. This ruling by the trial court was premature. At that point, jurisdiction had not been lost. I would reverse the trial court and order the matter set down for prompt trial.

MCL 780.131; MSA 28.969(1), which provides in part:
* * such inmate shall be brought to trial within 180 days after the department of corrections shall cause. to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which such warrant, indictment, information or complaint is pending written notice of the place of imprisonment of such inmate and a request for final disposition of such warrant, indictment, information or complaint.”

 People v Hill, 402 Mich 272, 280; 262 NW2d 641 (1978).

 See People v Forrest, 72 Mich App 266, 269; 249 NW2d 384 (1976), where we said:
"* * * any delay occasioned by the failure of the court to act cannot be permitted to defeat the intendment of the statute.”
Also, see People v Pitsaroff, 102 Mich App 226; 301 NW2d 858 (1980), rev’d and rem’d 411 Mich 941; 308 NW2d 98 (1981).

 The motion was dated April 19, 1982, and filed April 20,1982.