PEOPLE OF MI V COREY ALLAN SAYLOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED November 23, 1999 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 215673 Grand Traverse Circuit Court LC No. 97-007329 FH COREY ALLAN SAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Gribbs and White, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted his plea-based conviction of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUIL), third offense, MCL 257.625(7)(d); MSA 9.2325(7)(d). Based on subsequent developments, we vacate the order granting defendant leave to appeal. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Defendant’s plea of guilty to OUIL, third offense, was conditioned on the validity of the two prior OUIL convictions. The trial court sentenced defendant to forty to sixty months in prison, with credit for 161 days. Another panel of this Court granted defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal the conviction of OUIL, third offense. Defendant filed a delayed application for leave to appeal the trial court’s order affirming decisions by the district court denying his motions to withdraw the pleas which resulted in the two prior OUIL convictions (Docket No. 216747). Another panel of this Court denied the delayed application for lack of merit. In the instant appeal, defendant presents no substantive issues for appellate review. He argues only that these proceedings should be held in abeyance pending a decision in Docket No. 216747, or that this matter should be remanded if relief is granted in Docket No. 216747. Defendant was not granted the relief he sought from this Court in Docket No. 216747. Therefore, we vacate the order granting defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal the instant case. 1 -1­ Appeal dismissed. /s/ William C. Whitbeck /s/ Roman S. Gribbs /s/ Helene N. White 1 In a supplemental brief, defendant informs this Court that he filed a timely application for leave to appeal from this Court’s ruling in No. 216717, and asks that the instant case be held in abeyance until the Supreme Court rules on the application. We decline to do so. However, defendant may file a motion to reinstate in the event the Supreme Court grants the application for leave. -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.