Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether a Michigan law requiring notice to a criminal defendant should be strictly construed. In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/151439_66_01.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Swift</em>, No. 151439</a>, the defendant was sentenced as a three-time habitual offender. MCL 769.11 allows the prosecutor to seek an enhanced sentence for repeat offenders. But MCL 769.13 requires the prosecutor to file “a written notice of his or her intent to do so within 21 days after the defendant’s arraignment.” In this case, the felony warrant and felony complaint, both of which were filed before the defendant’s arraignment, indicated the prosecutor’s intent to seek an enhanced sentence. On the day of arraignment, the defendant was also given a copy of the felony information, which also indicated that the prosecutor intended to seek an enhanced sentence.

contentpilot/introduction

But MCL 769.13 requires the prosecutor to actually serve on the defendant notice of the intent to seek an enhanced sentence and to file “a written proof of service with the clerk of the court.” In <em>Swift</em>, the prosecutor failed to do so—the defendant only received notice before and during arraignment in the form of the felony warrant, felony complaint, and felony information. Defendant Swift therefore claims the prosecutor did not meet the requirements of the statute, and seeks a resentencing. The Michigan Supreme Court has ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs discussing: “1) whether serving the habitual offender notice prior to the defendant’s arraignment on the information satisfies the 21-day time requirement under MCL 769.13, and 2) if not, whether the harmless error rules apply to the failure to serve the habitual offender notice within the 21-day time requirement under MCL 769.13.”

core/paragraph

Partner

Adam T. Ratliff

Labor and Employment

MSC to hear MOAA on whether prosecutor satisfied notice requirements when seeking enhanced sentence

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

MSC to hear MOAA on whether prosecutor satisfied notice requirements when seeking enhanced sentence

professionals