PEOPLE OF MI V GARY D OAKLEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 180521
LC No. 93-126033-FC
GARY D. OAKLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and F.D. Brouillette,* JJ.
BROUILLETTE, J. (dissenting).
I agree with the reasoning of the majority except as to the remedy provided. I agree, for all the
reasons cited by the majority, that this case should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary
hearing so that the trial court can determine when defendant or his attorney received actual notice of the
habitual offender information and whether or not that notice was sufficient to enable the defendant to
knowingly plead to the underlying charges. I also agree that if the trial court finds the notice was timely
the defendant’s convictions and sentences should be affirmed.
If, however, the trial court finds that the defendant did not receive adequate notice of the
habitual offender charge the prosecution should be given the opportunity to dismiss the habitual offender
charge and allow the sentences originally imposed for the underlying convictions to stand. To the extent
the majority opinion stands for a contrary result I dissent.
The court properly sentenced the defendant on the underlying charges before any plea was
made or any sentence imposed on the habitual offender information. To allow the defendant to
withdraw his guilty pleas to the underlying charges after the passage of this much time without affording
the prosecution the opportunity to dismiss the habitual offender information instead might unfairly burden
the prosecution.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Filing and dismissing criminal charges is uniquely within the statutory authority of the prosecution
and in this case and under these circumstances the prosecution should be given that opportunity.
/s/ Francis D. Brouillette
-2
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.
