Court Opinion

ID: 9569150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:10:55.702642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:30.960880
License: Public Domain

Fitzgerald, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority opinion with respect to the fourteen-day time limit for an arraignment and the thirty-five-day time limit for a pretrial conference. I do not agree with the majority’s analysis, however, with respect to the seventy-seven-day time limit for final adjudication.
MCL 257.625b(2); MSA 9.2325(2)(2) provides, in relevant part:
The court shall, except for delay attributable to the unavailability of the defendant, a witness, or material evidence, or due to an interlocutory appeal or exceptional circumstances, but not a delay caused by docket congestion, finally adjudicate, by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or the entry of a verdict, or by other final disposition, . . . within 77 days after the person is arrested for the violation or, if an arrest warrant is reissued, not more than 77 days after the date the reissued arrest warrant is served.
*59Exceptions to the seventy-seven-day deadlines for court and administrative action are narrowly constructed. Although delay would be allowed for "exceptional circumstances,” this standard, taken from the Michigan Court Rule regarding speedy trials and delays by prosecutors,1 is more restrictive than the familiar standard of "good cause.” In the absence of a persuasive showing of exceptional circumstances to justify a delay beyond the seventy-seven-day deadline, I believe that dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate remedy.2

 MCR 6.004(C)(4)(b).

 In People v Smith, 200 Mich App 237; 504 NW2d 21 (1993), the arraignment was not held within fourteen days of the arrest. The Court held that violation of the fourteen-day rule is not a jurisdictional defect. Although the Court noted that subsections 625b(l) and (2) of the Vehicle Code did not suggest that a violation of the time limits established is jurisdictional, the holding in the case was limited to the fourteen-day deadline for an arraignment. Therefore, the decision in Smith is not outcome-determinative with respect to the seventy-seven-day deadline for final adjudication.