People Of Mi V Federico Luis Cruz (Order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER People of MI v Federico Luis Cruz James Robert Redford Presiding Judge Docket No. 364089 Christopher P. Yates LC No. 96-005857-FC Kathleen A. Feeney Judges The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal is DENIED for lack of merit in the grounds presented. Defendant received a sentence of nonparolable life in prison from Kent County Circuit Court Judge Dennis B. Leiber for a murder conviction. Judge Leiber thereafter denied relief from that sentence after a hearing under Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012). After Judge Leiber retired from the bench, and while defendant’s case was pending on appeal, the case was reassigned to Kent County Circuit Court Judge Curt A. Benson, who granted defendant’s motion for a new Miller hearing. That development prompted the dismissal of the pending appeal in light of Judge Benson’s order granting a new Miller hearing. But before Judge Benson could conduct that hearing, he was reassigned to run the Specialized Business Docket in Kent County. As a result, he was no longer available to conduct a Miller hearing. Kent County Chief Circuit Judge Mark A. Trusock thereafter reassigned defendant’s case to his own docket for a Miller hearing, even though Kent County Circuit Court Judge Scott A. Noto assumed responsibility for the cases left on Judge Benson’s docket. To explain the reassignment of defendant’s case, Chief Judge Trusock cited MCR 8.111(C)(1), which provides that “[i]f a judge is disqualified or for other good cause cannot undertake an assigned case, the chief judge may assign it to another judge by a written order stating the reason.” Chief Judge Trusock offered the following reasons for reassigning defendant’s case to himself: Judge Noto was “a new judge to the criminal arena” who had been working in the family court since he joined the bench. We believe that explanation suffices for purposes of reassignment under MCL 8.111(C)(1). Giving some relief to a judge who is new to a docket in an unfamiliar area of the law is eminently reasonable. Defendant argues that even if reassignment of his case was permissible under MCR 8.111(C)(1), that rule provides that, “[t]o the extent feasible, the alternate judge should be selected by lot.” In explaining the decision to reassign defendant’s case to himself, as opposed to reassigning the case by lot, Chief Judge Trusock stated that his criminal docket was the only one in the Kent County Circuit Court that “became up to date” in the wake of the COVID pandemic, which created a substantial backlog of criminal cases to be handled by plea or trial. Again, we find this explanation sufficient to support the reassignment decision made by Chief Judge Trusock. Reassigning cases among judges to address a substantial backlog is an eminently reasonable approach. Accordingly, we do not believe that MCR 8.111(C)(1) compels a different result. _______________________________ Presiding Judge February 21, 2023
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.
