IN RE DEEVON CORNEA BROWN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DEEVON CORNEA BROWN,
Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 25, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 274976
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-701179-DL
DEEVON CORNEA BROWN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Hoekstra and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent, a juvenile, appeals as of right from an order of disposition entered after he
was adjudicated guilty of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520e(1)(a). We
affirm.
I. FACTS
A petition alleged that respondent rubbed the minor complainant’s vaginal area on two
occurrences without her permission. These touches occurred when respondent and the
complainant were seated across from one another in a classroom while working as a team on a
school project. Although other students and the teacher were situated nearby, no one else
witnessed the incident. At the jury trial, respondent’s attorney attempted to cast doubt on, and to
emphasize the inconsistencies in, the complainant’s claims. But the jury returned a guilty
verdict.
At the October 10, 2006 disposition, respondent’s attorney revealed his
misunderstanding of the process in juvenile law where a case can be transferred from the formal
calendar to a consent calendar. Defendant made a hasty request for such a transfer. The trial
court denied defendant’s request on the ground that respondent had not entered a plea of guilty
and, instead, had already proceeded to a jury trial.
II. REQUEST FOR TRANSFER TO CONSENT CALENDAR
Respondent first argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied his
motion to transfer his case to the consent calendar. We disagree.
-1-
A. Standard of Review
MCR 3.932 provides the trial court with discretion1 to rule on transfer requests.
Therefore, we review the trial court’s denial of respondent’s petition to transfer the case from the
formal calendar to the consent calendar for an abuse of that discretion. An abuse of discretion
occurs when the result is outside the principled range of outcomes. People v Babcock, 469 Mich
247, 269; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).
B. Analysis
Respondent refers this Court to MCR 3.932(C) and (D), which gives the trial court
discretionary power to order a transfer from the formal calendar to the consent calendar “[a]t any
time before disposition.” Respondent contends that the trial court’s denial of his motion to
transfer his case to the consent calendar on the ground that he had not entered a guilty plea was
prejudicial error. However, a review of the record shows that respondent had a history of
charges against him that dated back to November of 2004, and he was on probation at the time of
this incident, which was both serious and brazen. Given this history, it is clear that had the trial
court considered respondent’s motion on the merits, the court would have denied the transfer to
the consent calendar as contrary to “the best interests of the juvenile and the public” under MCR
3.932(C).2 Thus, even if the trial court did abuse its discretion, its error is harmless because
respondent has failed to show any resulting prejudice. People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495-496;
596 NW2d 607 (1999).
III. EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
We also reject respondent’s claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
when his attorney failed to call any rebuttal witnesses, failed to request a transfer to the consent
calendar before the jury trial, and failed to seek out a plea bargain with the prosecution.
A. Standard of Review
“Whether a person has been denied effective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of
fact and constitutional law.” People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579; 640 NW2d 246 (2002). The
trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while its constitutional determinations
are reviewed de novo. Id.
B. Analysis
1
MCR 3.932(C) states that the trial court “may transfer a case from the formal calendar to the
consent calendar at any time before disposition.” The term “may” designates discretion. People
v Brown, 249 Mich App 382, 386; 642 NW2d 382 (2002).
2
In light of our decision on this issue, we do no need to reach petitioner’s argument attempting
to invalidate MCR 3.932(C) and (D) to the extent that they allow a transfer in the middle of
delinquency proceedings to the informal consent calendar.
-2-
Respondent does not identify what other witnesses should have been called, or what
would have been their expected testimonies. Therefore, he failed to establish how he was denied
a substantial defense. People v Hyland, 212 Mich App 701, 710; 538 NW2d 465 (1995), vacated
in part on other grounds 453 Mich 902 (1996). Further, as discussed above, the outcome in this
delinquency proceeding would not have been any different even had respondent’s attorney made
an earlier request that the case be transferred to the consent calendar since such a request would
have been properly denied. Lastly, there was no evidence in the existing record that the
prosecution was interested in offering a plea bargain or that respondent’s counsel failed to pursue
that option.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Bill Schuette
-3-
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.