Court Opinion

ID: 9395996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 05:06:39.529733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:13.145470
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     May 18, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellant,

v                                                                    No. 361680
                                                                     Wayne Circuit Court
KEENAN TOLLIVER,                                                     LC No. 21-005262-01-FC

               Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RICK, P.J., and SHAPIRO and O’BRIEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM

        Defendant was charged with first-degree murder, MCL 750.316, carrying a concealed
weapon (CCW), MCL 750.227, felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f, and two counts
of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b, in
relation to a fatal shooting. Before defendant was bound over for trial, the district court entered a
stipulated protective order regarding the discovery of digital evidence at issue in the case, which
included hours of police bodycam footage and 911 calls, as well as upwards of 70,000 pages of
cell phone records. Defendant’s trial counsel initially agreed to the terms of the protective order.
However, defendant retained new counsel after he was bound over for trial. Defendant’s retained
counsel moved to compel discovery, asserting that the protective order was overbroad. In
response, the prosecutor contended that under MCR 6.201(E), a protective order could be issued
for good cause shown. To that end, the prosecutor contended that the size of the record and the
nature of potentially sensitive information it contained constituted good cause for a protective
order. The trial court agreed with defendant that the protective order was overbroad and entered
an order granting the motion to compel discovery and setting aside the district court’s protective
order. This appeal followed. While the appeal was pending, defendant’s retained counsel passed
away. Defendant obtained new trial counsel,1 who signed the protective order. Because defendant
has acquiesced to the protective order, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

1
 The record does not expressly indicate whether defendant’s new trial counsel was retained or
appointed.

                                                -1-
        “Whether an issue is moot is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” In re
Tchakarova, 328 Mich App 172, 178; 936 NW2d 863 (2019). In general, “a court will not decide
moot issues.” People v Richmond, 486 Mich 29, 34; 782 NW2d 187 (2010). “An issue is moot
when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the reviewing court to fashion a remedy to the
controversy.” People v Cathey, 261 Mich App 506, 510; 681 NW2d 661 (2004). As noted, defense
counsel signed the protective order at issue. A copy of the order, signed by both parties, was
submitted to this Court following oral argument. We dismiss this appeal as moot because under
the circumstances, it would be impossible for this Court to fashion an appropriate remedy. Id.

       Dismissed.

                                                            /s/ Michelle M. Rick
                                                            /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
                                                            /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien

                                               -2-