PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL DENNIS REID
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
June 10, 2010
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 286784
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 07-020203
MICHAEL DENNIS REID,
Defendant-Appellant.
Advance Sheets Version
Before: DONOFRIO, P.J., and SAWYER and OWENS, JJ.
SAWYER, J.
This case presents the question whether the circuit court possesses the jurisdiction to try a
defendant on a misdemeanor charge when the accompanying felony charge was dismissed before
the beginning of trial. We hold that it does not and that the circuit court erred by trying
defendant on the misdemeanor charge rather than remanding the matter to the district court for
trial.
This case arises from a traffic stop by the Michigan State Police in Wayne County. The
traffic stop resulted in defendant being arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated
(OWI).1 A search of defendant’s vehicle yielded pill bottles and pills, with one of the bottles
missing a label. Defendant was originally charged with felony drug possession and
misdemeanor OWI. On the day of trial, however, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the felony
drug charge, apparently because it had been determined that defendant did, in fact, have a valid
prescription for the pills. Thus, only the misdemeanor charge remained. Defendant was
convicted on the misdemeanor OWI charge and sentenced to 93 days in jail.
MCL 767.1 generally grants the circuit court jurisdiction over all criminal cases, felony
and misdemeanor. But MCL 600.8311(a) specifically grants the district court jurisdiction over
misdemeanors punishable by not more than one year in jail. In People v Veling,2 the Supreme
Court reviewed the circumstances under which the circuit court may exercise jurisdiction over
criminal cases that otherwise belong in other courts. Veling itself dealt with juveniles charged as
adults under the automatic-waiver statute but convicted of lesser offenses not included within
that statute. In resolving that issue, the Court considered the historical circumstances under
1
MCL 257.625(1)
2
People v Veling, 443 Mich 23, 32-35; 504 NW2d 456 (1993).
-1-
which the circuit court maintains jurisdiction over misdemeanors. The Court identified three
such circumstances.3
First, relying on People v Schoeneth,4 the Veling Court noted that the circuit court
maintains jurisdiction to sentence a defendant charged with a felony but convicted of a lesser
included misdemeanor. Second, relying on People v Loukas,5 the Veling Court observed that
when a defendant is charged with multiple counts involving both felony and misdemeanor
charges arising out of the same transaction, the circuit court possesses jurisdiction over the
misdemeanor as well as the felony charges.6 And, third, relying on People v Shackelford,7 the
Veling Court stated that when a posttrial action eliminates a felony charge, the circuit court
retains jurisdiction to sentence on the remaining misdemeanor.8
None of these circumstances was present here. Had trial commenced on both charges
and the felony charge been dismissed by motion or directed verdict, perhaps the Schoeneth
exception could be said to have applied. But that is not what happened. The felony charge was
dismissed before trial. Once that occurred and only a misdemeanor charge that came within the
district court’s jurisdiction under MCL 600.8311 remained, we believe that under Veling the
appropriate course of action for the circuit court was to remand the matter to the district court
rather than for the circuit court to proceed to trial solely on the misdemeanor charge.
Finally, we note that the prosecution’s reliance on People v Goecke9 is misplaced.
Goecke dealt more with the issue of personal jurisdiction than the issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction and, more specifically, the question whether the prosecution must proceed by an
appeal in the circuit court or by a motion to amend the information in the circuit court when
challenging a district court’s decision to bind a defendant over on one felony charge but dismiss
a different felony charge. This is a significantly different issue from that presented in this case.
In light of our resolution of this issue, we need not address the remaining issues raised by
defendant.
Reversed.
3
Id.
4
People v Schoeneth, 44 Mich 489; 7 NW 70 (1880).
5
People v Loukas, 104 Mich App 204; 304 NW2d 532 (1981).
6
It is on this basis that both of the charges here were to be tried together in circuit court. The
misdemeanor followed the felony charge to circuit court.
7
People v Schakelford, 146 Mich App 330; 379 NW2d 487 (1985).
8
In Shackelford, the defendant was tried on a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge that
was enhanced to a felony as a second offense. Defendant was convicted of the felony possession
charge, but thereafter the prosecutor moved to dismiss the felony enhancement, leaving only the
misdemeanor possession charge. Id. at 332-333.
9
People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442; 579 NW2d 868 (1998).
-2-
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.