|
In the absence of a quorum at the November 3 Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Meeting, an e-vote on matters discussed is requested. The following motions were made and supported. All committee members are requested to indicate their vote as A, B or C on each item by Monday, November 14 at 4 PM. Your voting choices are: A. Support the Committee Position B. Oppose the Committee Position C. Abstain from Voting 1. SB 0464 (Schuitmaker) Criminal procedure; other; development of investigative protocols and abuse and neglect interview protocols for vulnerable adults; require by certain local agencies. Amends sec. 11b of 1939 PA 280 (MCL 400.11b). MOTION: Support. The committee believed that the protocols, similar to that required in child abuse cases, was appropriate for vulnerable adults. 2. 2010-15 Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.005 of the Michigan Court Rules MOTION: Support. There was some discussion as to whether this information is otherwise available through the prosecutorâs office, the court file, or whether there should be centralized location for this information. The consensus was that there may be information in the defendantâs trial attorneyâs file that would not be otherwise available, and it was important for appellate counsel to be able to access any and all information related to the defendantâs criminal case. 3. 2010-20 Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules MOTION: Support and Amend. The Committee originally voted to support 2010-20 and the proposed amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Support the revised MCR 6.302(B)(2) After further discussion the committee believed that language is necessary to advise a defendant of the possible consequences if a habitual offender notice is filed within the 21 days allowed by statute after arraignment. The concern was, however, the wording of the proposed amendment to the Court Rule; the effect it may have on the plea process, the subsequent filing of a habitual offender notice, and the defendantâs ability to withdraw oneâs plea. Advising a defendant, when appropriate, that if the prosecutor post plea files a habitual offender notice your possible maximum sentence may be increased under the Habitual Offender Act is an actual rendition of the law and avoids any undue speculation. The Committee recommends the following amended language: Rule 6.302 Pleas of Guilty and Nolo Contendere (B) An understanding Plea. Speaking directly to the defendant or defendants, the court must advise the defendant or defendants of the following and determine that each defendant understands: (1) [Unchanged.] (2) the maximum possible prison sentence for the offense and any mandatory minimum sentence required by law Use of this amendment to the Court Rule would only be necessary if the on record recitation did not otherwise make reference as part of the plea to the Habitual Offender Act and if the plea took place before or during the time allowed by statute for the filing of a habitual offender notice. Carrie A. Sharlow
Administrative Assistant, Governmental Relations
State Bar of Michigan
Michael Franck Building
306 Townsend Street
Lansing, MI 48933
P: 517-346-6317
F: 517-482-6248
+-----------------------------------------------+ Consider the environment before printing. E-mail / Fax Notice: The transmitted material is intended only for the use of the addressee. It may contain confidential, proprietary and / or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, in whole or in part, is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail reply or by phone (800-968-1442), delete the communication and destroy any copies. E-mail Warning: This e-mail was swept for computer viruses. However, we cannot guarantee that the integrity of this e-mail has been maintained in transmission and do not accept responsibility for the consequences of any virus contamination. +------------------mail.michbar.org------------------+ |