PEOPLE OF MI V MARK J SEMKIW
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 15, 2005
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 255016
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 03-012193
MARK J. SEMKIW,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Hoekstra and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his plea-based conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the
first degree (CSC I), MCL 750.520b(1)(c). We affirm.
In October 2003 defendant was charged with CSC I and breaking and entering an
occupied dwelling with intent to commit sexual assault or larceny, MCL 750.110, for an incident
that occurred on September 1, 1986. In the trial court, defendant moved to dismiss the case on
the ground that the statute of limitations for a CSC offense in effect at the time the charged
offense was committed had expired. The trial court denied the motion.
Defendant entered an unconditional plea of guilty to the charge of CSC I in return for the
dismissal of the breaking and entering charge, an agreement by the prosecution to forego
charging him for any offense that occurred in or prior to 1986, and an agreement that he serve
two to five years in prison. Defendant also agreed to waive any defense based on the statute of
limitations. The trial court sentenced defendant to two to five years in prison.
A statute of limitations defense in a criminal case is a nonjurisdictional, waivable
affirmative defense. Pleading guilty or nolo contendere waives a statute of limitations claim.
People v Bulger, 462 Mich 495, 517 n 7; 614 NW2d 103 (2000), overruled in part on other
grounds in Halbert v Michigan, ___ US ___; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552 (2005); People v
Burns, 250 Mich App 436, 439-440; 647 NW2d 515 (2002).
Defendant asserts that his plea-based conviction of CSC I must be vacated. He contends
that the six-year statute of limitations in effect at the time the offense was committed in 1986 had
-1-
long expired when he was charged, and that pursuant to Stogner v California, 539 US 607, 611;
123 S Ct 2446; 156 L Ed 2d 544 (2003), the amended version of MCL 767.24(2)1 could not be
utilized to support charging him in 2003.
We disagree and affirm defendant’s conviction. Defendant entered an unconditional plea
of guilty to the charge of CSC I, and unequivocally waived a defense based on the statute of
limitations. Under the circumstances, Stogner, supra, is inapplicable, and defendant’s argument
is without merit. Bulger, supra; Burns, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
1
Effective April 22, 2002, MCL 767.24(2) was amended to provide that an indictment against an
individual could be brought at any time within ten years after the individual was identified from
DNA evidence as the perpetrator of an offense.
-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.
