PEOPLE OF MI V CALVIN DERRICK GLAZE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 22, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 226703
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-002798
CALVIN DERRICK GLAZE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Smolenski and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
The prosecutor appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendant’s motion
to dismiss charges of resisting and obstructing, MCL 750.479; MSA 28.747, and fleeing and
eluding, MCL 257.602a; MSA 9.2302(1), based on competency. We reverse. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial due to mental illness. He was ordered to
undergo treatment. The court later redetermined that defendant was competent to stand trial and
the preliminary examination was conducted. After defendant was bound over for trial, he moved
to dismiss, successfully arguing that if his mental illness had previously rendered him
incompetent to stand trial, it likewise rendered him legally insane.
The test for insanity as a defense and the test for competency to stand trial are different
and focus on separate points in time; however, the fact that a defendant has been found
incompetent to stand trial strongly suggests the possibility of an insanity defense. People v
Tumpkin, 49 Mich App 262, 265; 212 NW2d 38 (1973). Before a defendant can assert a defense
of insanity, he must file notice of an intent to assert the defense, and the court must then order
him to undergo an evaluation to determine if he was mentally ill or mentally retarded at the time
he committed the offense. MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). However, a finding that the
defendant was mentally ill or mentally retarded does not automatically render him legally insane
and thus not legally responsible for his crime. He is only insane if, as a result of his mental
illness or mental retardation, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the nature and
quality or the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the
law. MCL 768.21a(1); MSA 28.1044(1)(1).
-1-
Defendant never filed a notice of intent to assert an insanity defense and was never
evaluated for criminal responsibility. All he showed was that at one time he was not competent
to stand trial due to mental illness. Therefore, the trial court erred when it dismissed the charges
based on defendant having once been found incompetent to stand trial.
Reversed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
