PEOPLE OF MI V CHARLES LEE WINWARD III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 28, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 229932
St Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 00-000982
CHARLES LEE WINWARD, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Doctoroff, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for possession of less than 25
grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant asserts that the case should have been dismissed for violation of the 180-day
rule, MCL 780.131, and violation of his right to a speedy trial. The 180-day rule provides that an
inmate of the Department of Corrections must be brought to trial within 180 days after the
prosecution is given notice of untried charges against him. When a pretrial delay greater than
180 days occurs, the rule is satisfied if the prosecutor has taken good faith action within that
period to promptly ready the case for trial. People v Crawford, 232 Mich App 608, 612; 591
NW2d 669 (1999). This Court will review a trial court’s attributions of delay for clear error. Id.
The defendant need not object to the delay to preserve the issue. People v Hewitt, 176 Mich App
680, 682; 439 NW2d 913 (1989).
Defendant has failed to show that the trial court clearly erred in denying dismissal. The
delay between the issuance of the warrant and the arraignment was attributable to the prosecutor,
but it was less than 180 days. Where defendant agreed to the trial date outside the 180-day
period, that delay may be properly attributable to defendant. Crawford, supra, 613-614. There
was no violation of the rule.
There is no showing that defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
In determining whether a defendant was denied a speedy trial, courts will consider (1) the length
of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of the right to a speedy
trial, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. Barker v Wingo, 407 US 514, 530; 92 S Ct 2182; 33
L Ed 2d 101 (1972); People v Metzler, 193 Mich App 541; 484 NW2d 695 (1992). Here, the
delay was not lengthy, it was due to inadvertence, defendant did not assert his right to a speedy
-1-
trial, and there was no harm to defendant, where he was incarcerated on another charge and
received sentence credit for time served. Defendant was not denied his constitutional right to a
speedy trial.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
-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.
