IN RE CONTEMPT OF LARRY J TANKSLEYAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re Contempt of LARRY J. TANKSLEY.
TEMEIKA S. MOORE,
October 27, 2000
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-736895
LARRY J. TANKSLEY,
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Sawyer and Zahra, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right from an order holding him in contempt of court for
violating a personal protection order (PPO). We reverse and remand for entry of an order
dismissing the charge against defendant without prejudice.
On November 17, 1997, plaintiff was granted a petition for a PPO against defendant.
Plaintiff and defendant were previously romantically involved and had two children together.
The PPO, in part, prohibited defendant from entering onto plaintiff’s property, assaulting,
attacking, and threatening to kill or physically injure plaintiff. At 4:30 a.m. on March 20, 1998,
defendant was arrested for allegedly violating the PPO by entering onto plaintiff’s property and
assaulting and threatening plaintiff. At 2:55 p.m. that same day, defendant was arraigned and
pleaded not guilty. The trial court set defendant’s bond at $1,500 and sua sponte scheduled his
contempt hearing for March 24, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. Defendant was unable to post bond.
The contempt hearing began at 11:41 a.m. on March 24, 1998. Defendant was found to
have violated the PPO and was sentenced to sixty days’ imprisonment1 and fined $350. That
sentence was stayed pending appeal to this Court.
Defendant was given credit for three days served.
On appeal, defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss the contempt charge because the hearing on the charge was not held within seventy-two
hours after his arrest or arraignment. Prior to considering the merit of defendant’s argument, we
must first examine whether the issue was preserved for our review. We note that the lower court
record is not clear with respect to whether defendant was represented by counsel during his
arraignment. Although there was some reference during the contempt hearing to an attorney that
was appointed to defendant prior to his arraignment, the transcript of the arraignment indicates
that defendant was not represented by counsel at the arraignment. Without the aid of counsel at
that point in the proceedings, defendant could not be expected to have known of statutory
scheduling requirements for the contempt hearing. Therefore, we refuse to find that defendant
waived or forfeited his challenge to the timeliness of the hearing by failing to object at the time
the trial court scheduled the hearing.
Defendant was represented by counsel at the contempt hearing. Prior to discussing the
contempt issue, defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the charge on the basis that the hearing
was not held within seventy-two hours after defendant’s arrest or arraignment as required by
statute and court rule. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, stating that it was unsure
whether dismissal was the appropriate remedy for the late hearing because defendant was not
prejudiced by the delay. Consequently, defendant’s challenge to the timing of the contempt
hearing was raised before and addressed by the trial court and was preserved for our review. See
Miller v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co, 218 Mich App 221, 235; 553 NW2d 371 (1996); see also
People v Crawford, 429 Mich 151, 156-157; 414 NW2d 360 (1987) (holding that a criminal
defendant must object to an untimely preliminary examination before commencement of the
preliminary examination to be entitled to relief in the form of dismissal of the criminal charge)
and People v Weston, 413 Mich 371, 372-373; 319 NW2d 537 (1982).2
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion.
People v Adams, 232 Mich App 128, 132; 591 NW2d 44 (1998). An abuse of discretion is found
in cases in which the result is so violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a
We recognize that, in Crawford, our Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant whose
motion to dismiss a charge based on an untimely preliminary examination is denied must file an
appeal before his guilt is determined at trial in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Crawford, supra at 161-162. Here, defendant did not appeal to this Court until after he was
found in contempt. However, we note that there are fundamental differences in the civil
procedure of a PPO violation hearing and the procedure in a criminal felony case. Unlike
criminal cases where there is a gap in time between a defendant’s preliminary examination and
his trial, conviction and sentence, in a case involving a charged violation of a PPO, the
defendant’s guilt with respect to the alleged violation is determined at the hearing directly
following his arraignment. That hearing is the first opportunity for the defendant to object to the
timing of the hearing or to directly challenge the merit of the charge. Therefore, we find it
unnecessary for a defendant accused of violating a PPO to file an interlocutory appeal between
the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss based on timeliness and the trial court’s
determination of guilt in order to preserve his challenge to the timing of the hearing.
defiance of judgment, or an exercise of passion or bias. People v Hudson, 241 Mich App 268,
276; 615 NW2d 784 (2000). Moreover, interpretation and application of statutes and the court
rules present questions of law that we review de novo. Oakland Co Bd of Rd Comm’rs v
Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Ass’n, 456 Mich 590, 610; 575 NW2d 751 (1998);
Reitmeyer v Schultz Equipment & Parts Co, Inc, 237 Mich App 332, 336; 602 NW2d 596 (1999).
At the time of the instant dispute, MCL 764.15b(2); MSA 28.874(2)(2) provided:
An individual arrested under this section shall be brought before the family
division of the circuit court having jurisdiction in the cause within 24 hours after
arrest to answer to a charge of contempt for violation of the personal protection
order, at which time the court shall do each of the following:
(a) Set a time certain for a hearing on the alleged violation of the personal
protection order within 72 hours after arrest, unless extended by the court on the
motion of the arrested individual or the prosecuting attorney. [Emphasis added.]3
Furthermore, MCR 3.708(F)(1) stated:
Following the respondent’s appearance or arraignment, the court shall do the
(a) Set a date for the hearing at the earliest practicable time except as
required by MCL 764.15b; MSA 28.874(2).
(i) The hearing of a respondent being held in custody for an alleged
violation of a personal protection order must be held within 72 hours after the
arraignment or the court must order the respondent released from custody pending
the hearing. [Emphasis added.]4
Given that plain, unambiguous language, it is clear that holding a contempt hearing beyond
seventy-two hours after an arrest, when the period is not extended on a motion by either party
and there is not good cause in the record supporting an extension, constitutes a violation of MCL
764.15b(2); MSA 28.874(2)(2) and MCR 3.708(F)(1).
Since this case was appealed, the text of MCL 764.15b(2)(a); MSA 28.874(2)(2)(a) was
amended and clarified to read:
(a) Set a time certain for a hearing on the alleged violation of the personal
protection order. The hearing shall be held within 72 hours after arrest, unless
extended by the court on the motion of the arrested individual or the prosecuting
attorney. [Amended by 1999 PA 269, emphasis added.]
The current version of MCR 3.708(F) is consistent with MCL 764.15b(2); MSA 28.874(2)(2) in
that it requires that a hearing on a PPO violation be held within seventy-two hours after the
defendant’s arrest unless extended on a motion by one of the parties.
Michigan courts have not addressed the proper remedy for a violation of MCL
764.15b(2); MSA 28.874(2)(2) or MCR 3.708(F)(1). Given the clear legislative mandate that a
defendant be afforded a hearing on a charged PPO violation within seventy-two hours, we hold
that a violation of the time limit expressed in MCL 764.15b(2)(a); MSA 28.874(2)(2)(a) or MCR
3.708(F)(1)(a) demands dismissal of the charge. However, such dismissal is without prejudice to
the prosecution’s ability to reinstate the charge against the defendant.5 In reaching that
conclusion, we draw guidance from criminal cases involving the time limit for commencement of
a preliminary examination. In Weston, supra, our Supreme Court interpreted the statutory time
period for holding a preliminary examination strictly, holding that the trial court’s failure to
schedule the defendant’s preliminary examination within the time period expressed by the
Legislature demanded dismissal of the criminal charge. Id. at 376; see also People v Horne, 147
Mich App 375, 377-378; 383 NW2d 208 (1985); People v Fuqua, 146 Mich App 250, 252-253;
379 NW2d 442 (1985); People v Holguin, 141 Mich App 268, 273-275; 367 NW2d 846 (1985);
and People v Dunson, 139 Mich App 511, 513-514; 363 NW2d 16 (1984). However, Weston
made clear that such dismissal does not prejudice the prosecution’s ability to reinstate the
charges against the defendant. Weston, supra. Furthermore, in Fuqua, this Court refused to
extend Weston to impose the “extraordinary remedy of dismissal with prejudice” when the delay
in holding the preliminary examination was found to be trivial and did not affect the integrity of
the fact-finding process. Fuqua, supra at 253.
General principles of statutory construction preclude construction of a time limit for
performance of an official duty as barring reinstatement of a charge when there is not language
expressly precluding performance of the duty after the time period elapses. When a statutory
time limit is merely directory, violation of the time limit does not demand absolute dismissal.
See People v Yarema, 208 Mich App 54, 57; 527 NW2d 27 (1994) and People v Smith, 200 Mich
App 237, 241-243; 504 NW2d 21 (1993), citing 3 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (5th ed),
§ 57.19, pp 47-48. Neither MCL 764.15b(2); MSA 28.874(2)(2) nor MCR 3.708(F)(1) contain
language absolutely barring a contempt hearing after expiration of the seventy-two-hour period.
Therefore, a violation of the seventy-two-hour period does not preclude subsequent prosecution
on the same charge.6 It is evident that, in establishing the procedure for prosecuting an alleged
PPO violation, our Legislature did not purport to establish a system whereby there is speedy
justice or no justice at all. See Smith, supra at 241.
We note that a defendant charged with violating a PPO does not need to make an affirmative
showing of prejudice to be entitled to the remedy of dismissal of the charge. Weston rejected the
“no prejudice/no reversible error” rule in regard to the time period required for holding a
preliminary examination because holding a presumptively innocent defendant in custody until
there is a convenient time for his preliminary examination is exactly what the Legislature
precluded. Weston, supra at 376. The same can be said with respect to the time period expressed
in MCL 764.15b(2); MSA 28.874(2)(2) and MCR 3.708(F)(1). Any time that an individual
spends in custody awaiting a contempt hearing beyond seventy-two hours after his arrest is, itself,
prejudicial delay that our Legislature precluded.
That conclusion is supported by the mandate within MCR 3.708(F)(1)(a) that a defendant be
released from custody after expiration of the seventy-two-hour period, pending the hearing.
In the present case, defendant’s contempt hearing commenced more than 103 hours after
his arrest and nearly ninety-three hours after his arraignment. Neither the prosecution nor
defendant moved to schedule the hearing beyond the seventy-two-hour period and there is no
evidence of good cause to delay the hearing anywhere in the record. Therefore, the trial court
erred in holding the contempt hearing beyond seventy-two hours after defendant’s arrest.
Defendant should have been released from custody after the seventy-two-hour period expired,
pending the later hearing in accordance with the plain language of MCR 3.708(F)(1)(a).
Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the
charge. Given that MCL 764.15b(2); MSA 28.874(2)(2) and MCR 3.708(F)(1) were violated in
the present case, defendant’s conviction on the contempt charge should be vacated and an order
should be entered dismissing the charge against defendant without prejudice.
Given our disposition of that issue, it is unnecessary to consider the merit of defendant’s
additional argument regarding the trial court’s failure to properly advise him of his right to
appeal the contempt order.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order dismissing the contempt charge against
defendant without prejudice. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Brian K. Zahra