People Of Mi V Maurice Allen-Julius Stewart (Order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER People of MI v Maurice Allen-Julius Stewart Kirsten Frank Kelly Presiding Judge Docket No. 368766 Christopher M. Murray LC No. 20-000171-01-FC Thomas C. Cameron Judges The delayed application for leave to appeal is DENIED for lack of merit in the grounds presented. Regardless of the trial court’s stated reasoning for ruling as it did, it reached the correct result by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him under Article III(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), MCL 780.601. Defendant does not argue—let alone present any evidence—that he ever made a “request for a final disposition” that satisfied all of the associated requirements under Article III (e.g., service of a proper request on both the trial court and the prosecution; accomplished via registered or certified mail—with return receipt requested—sent by the warden having custody; “accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner”; etc.). Thus, defendant has not demonstrated that the 180-day period under Article III(a) was ever duly triggered. See People v Duenaz, 306 Mich App 85, 110-111; 854 NW2d 531 (2014); accord Fex v Michigan, 507 US 43, 52; 113 S Ct 1085; 122 L Ed 2d 406 (1993) (“the 180-day time period in Article III(a) of the IAD does not commence until the prisoner’s request for final disposition of the charges against him has actually been delivered to the court and prosecuting officer of the jurisdiction that lodged the detainer against him”). _______________________________ Presiding Judge December 20, 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.
