Criminal – Indictment – Preliminary examination

Where a defendant was charged via indictment by the presiding judge acting as a one-man grand jury without any preliminary examination, the charging procedure here was improper, but the error was harmless and did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction.

“In 2013, a jury convicted Todd Douglas Robinson on one count each of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony firearm), MCL 750.227b. As particularly relevant here, this case commenced in November 2012 when Robinson was charged of the aforementioned offenses via indictment by the presiding judge acting as a one-man grand jury, without any preliminary examination. A felony warrant was issued and the charges were filed in a felony information that same month. The trial court subsequently denied Robinson’s request for a preliminary examination or, alternatively, to quash the information.

“Robinson now appeals by delayed leave granted the trial court’s order denying his successive motion for relief from judgment. On appeal, Robinson contends that the trial court erroneously denied this motion because, after the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent opinion in People v Peeler , 509 Mich 381; 984 NW2d 80 (2022), Robinson’s charges and subsequent prosecution were void when the case commenced via indictment by a one-man grand jury, without a preliminary examination, thus depriving the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Robinson relatedly argues that Peeler applies retroactively, and the trial court committed legal error by concluding otherwise. Although the charging procedure here was improper under Peeler and the remaining subissues present a close call, we affirm because this error was harmless and did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction to proceed in the case.

“In sum, because the challenged error was harmless and did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction to proceed in the case, Robinson has failed to show entitlement to relief from judgment. As a final note, our conclusion that the improper procedure here did not deprive the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction is further supported by analogous authority from the United States Supreme Court and other states’ courts.”

People v. Robinson; MiLW 07-108097, 12 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals published; Young, J., joined by Cameron, J., N. P. Hood, J.; on appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Harold Gurewitz for appellant; Matthew J. Way for appellee.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.