PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL T OLIVER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 1, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 220810
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 96-054996-FH
MICHAEL T. OLIVER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Smolenski and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from an order and judgment of sentence revoking his
probation and sentencing him to forty to sixty months’ imprisonment. MCL 771.4; MSA
28.1134. Defendant was originally sentenced to a term of probation on a conviction of attempted
second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.92; MSA 28.287; MCL 750.520c(1)(a); MSA
28.788(3)(1)(a). We affirm.
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a
continuance to permit newly retained counsel to prepare for the violation of probation hearing.
We disagree. The court did not outright deny defense counsel’s request for a continuance. It
granted a recess to permit him to prepare to cross-examine the prosecution’s witness by
reviewing certain documents and left open the possibility of a continuance after that witness
testified, which counsel later said he did not need. Defense counsel’s approval of the manner in
which the court accommodated his request constituted a waiver that extinguished any error.
People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215-216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). Furthermore, the record shows
that counsel was able to cross-examine the prosecution’s witness and call witnesses to testify on
defendant’s behalf; defendant has not identified any additional evidence that could have been
presented at the hearing. Thus defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced in any way by the
court’s ruling. People v Wilson, 397 Mich 76, 81; 243 NW2d 257 (1976); People v Hill, 88 Mich
App 50, 58; 276 NW2d 512 (1979).
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-1-
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.
