PEOPLE OF MI V NEAL ANDREW PIZIALI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 19, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 208103
Antrim Circuit Court
LC No. 97-003080 FH
BRETT ALLEN PIZIALI,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 208112
Antrim Circuit Court
LC No. 97-003079 FH
NEAL ANDREW PIZIALI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendants appeal as of right from their jury trial convictions of two counts each of receiving
and concealing stolen property, MCL 750.535; MSA 28.803, and one count each of misdemeanor
possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(d). We affirm.
The sole issue on appeal i whether the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion to
s
dismiss the charges against them. Defendants argue they were denied their right to a fair trial by the
nine-month delay that occurred between the offenses and their arrest. Defendants assert that they were
prejudiced by a loss of evidence caused by the delay. We review the trial court’s decision on a motion
to dismiss for an abuse of discretion. People v Adams, 232 Mich App 128, 132; 591 NW2d 44
-1
(1998). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying defendants’ motion.
When deciding whether a defendant’s due process rights were violated by a prearrest or
preindictment delay, a court must undertake a two-part inquiry: (1) whether defendant has
demonstrated actual and substantial prejudice1 as a result of the delay, and (2) whether the prosecution
has shown that the reason for the delay justifies the resulting prejudice. Id. at 133-134. We conclude
that defendants have failed to establish the requisite actual and substantial prejudice.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
1
In order to establish actual and substantial prejudice, “a defendant must show not only ‘actual
prejudice, as opposed to mere speculative prejudice . . . but also that [. . .] any actual prejudice was
substantial—that he was meaningfully impaired of his ability to defend against the state’s charges to such
an extent that the disposition of the criminal proceeding was likely affected.’” Adams, supra at 135,
quoting Jones v Angelone, 94 F3d 900, 907 (CA 4, 1996).
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
