Court Opinion

ID: 9687082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:15:40.547494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.140859
License: Public Domain

Murphy, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in part and dissent in part. I would vacate defendant’s conviction of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and affirm the judgment of the' trial court in all other respects.
At the time of the shooting, defendant was sixteen years old. The Detroit Recorder’s Court acquired jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to the automatic waiver provisions of MCL 764. If; MSA 28.860(6) and MCL 600.606; MSA 27A.606. After defendant pleaded guilty of the charges, the trial court conducted a dispositional hearing pursuant to MCL 769.1(3); MSA 28.1072(3) and MCR 6.931(A) to determine whether the best interests of the juvenile and the public would be better served by sentencing defendant as a juvenile or as an adult. In making this determination, the trial court was required to consider the criteria of MCL 769.1(3); MSA 28.1072(3) and MCR 6.931(E)(3) and give each criterion its appropriate weight under the circumstances.
During the hearing, Robert Lemanek, a social worker with the Michigan Department of Social Services, recommended that defendant be placed within the juvenile system. On cross-examination, Mr. Lemanek admitted that he had been unaware when forming his opinion that defendant had been disciplined several times while in juvenile detention, but maintained his recommendation that *605defendant be sentenced as a juvenile. Similarly, Dr. Karen Clark testified that she had performed a psychological evaluation of defendant and recommended that he be placed within the juvenile system. Robert Bartz, a clinical psychologist evaluating defendant, testified during the hearing that he believed defendant should be sentenced as an adult. His earlier report to the trial court, however, recommended that defendant be placed in a juvenile facility. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to juvenile probation and committed him to the Department of Social Services for confinement in a proper institution until he reaches age twenty-one.
The prosecution challenges the trial court’s decision to sentence defendant as a juvenile, first contending that the trial court’s decision to sentence defendant as a juvenile was improperly based upon sympathy. The proper inquiry, however, is not whether the trial court exhibited sympathy for defendant, but whether the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous and whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the criteria of MCL 769.1(3); MSA 28.1072(3). Thus, even if true, the prosecution’s allegation that the trial court was sympathetic to defendant is not dispositive.
The prosecution next contends that the trial court incorrectly stated that a presumption exists in favor of juvenile probation with confinement. Although this issue is not addressed by the majority opinion, I would agree with the prosecution that no such presumption exists. I would hold, however, that the trial court’s use of the term "presumption” to describe this result is not error warranting reversal. Neither MCL 769.1(3); MSA 28.1072(3) nor MCR 6.931(E)(2) refers to the existence of a presumption in favor of juvenile disposi*606tion. The trial court accurately noted, however, that pursuant to MCR 6.931(E)(2), the burden is on the prosecutor to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the best interests of the juvenile and the public would be served by sentencing a juvenile defendant as an adult. Thus, while there is not a "presumption” in favor of juvenile disposition, if the prosecution fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the best interests of the juvenile and the public would be served by sentencing a juvenile defendant as an adult, the juvenile is to be sentenced as a juvenile.
The prosecution next contends that during the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it was not concerned with whether defendant’s sentence was compatible with public safety, thereby improperly abandoning this criterion. Although the majority opinion does not specifically address this issue, I would hold that the trial court did not abandon this criterion. The comments of the trial court must be viewed as a whole and in the context in which they were made. People v Collier, 168 Mich App 687, 697-698; 425 NW2d 118 (1988). Here, the challenged remark was made during an exchange in which the trial court advised the prosecutor not to argue the case on the basis of emotion and passion. Immediately after the challenged remark, the court clarified that it would consider the protection of society, but not on the basis of passion. Considering the context in which the challenged remark was made, the subsequent clarifying statement, and the fact that a similar statement did not appear in the trial court’s subsequent lengthy opinion, I am satisfied that the remark does not reflect a refusal to consider the protection of the public.
The prosecution next contends that the trial court was obligated to place the greatest emphasis *607on the public safety factor, and that the trial court’s finding that there was sufficient time remaining in which to turn defendant into a non-dangerous person is against the great weight of the evidence. Although I agree that consideration of the public safety factor is vital, I believe that the trial court placed the proper emphasis on this factor. Further, I would hold that the trial court properly applied all the statutory criteria in this case and that its findings are not clearly erroneous. The majority opinion sets forth in detail those portions of the record that arguably support findings contrary to those of the trial court. Because there is also evidence on the record supporting the trial court’s findings, however, I am not prepared to say that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous simply because conflicting testimony was presented. See, e.g., People v Brannon, 194 Mich App 121, 129; 486 NW2d 83 (1992). I would also note our obligation to give regard to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C).
I would further hold that the trial court’s ultimate decision to sentence defendant as a juvenile was not an abuse of discretion. I agree with the prosecution and with the majority opinion that the offense of which defendant pleaded guilty is of utmost seriousness. By adopting MCR 6.931, however, our Supreme Court has placed the burden upon the prosecution to do more than demonstrate that a defendant is guilty of a serious offense for which adult punishment is permitted. The prosecution in this case did not demonstrate defendant’s potential either for rehabilitation or for harm to society. Rather, the prosecution focused only on the seriousness of the offense, which while one consideration, is not the sole consideration in de*608termining whether defendant should be sentenced as an adult. Thus, I would conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the prosecutor failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant should be sentenced as an adult.
I agree with the majority that, although not raised by either party, the automatic waiver statute, which grants the trial court jurisdiction to try defendant for certain enumerated life felonies without conducting a waiver hearing, does not grant the court ancillary jurisdiction to try defendant for nonenumerated felonies, such as felony-firearm. People v Spearman, 195 Mich App 434, 443; 491 NW2d 606 (1992); People v Deans, 192 Mich App 327, 330-331; 480 NW2d 334 (1991). I would therefore vacate defendant’s felony-firearm conviction. In all other respects, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.