PEOPLE OF MI V ERIC SHERIDANAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
June 12, 1998
LC No. 97-000894
RICHARD L. CUNNINGHAM,
Before: Wahls, P.J., and Jansen and Gage, JJ.
Appellant Richard L. Cunningham appeals by leave granted the decision reducing defendant’s
bail without giving notice to the crime victim. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant was charged with first-degree home invasion and felony-firearm after he was
apprehended inside appellant’s residence. Bond was set at $10,000 cash. At the preliminary
examination, the 36th District Court denied defendant’s motion to reduce bond. At rehearing, the court
expressed the opinion that bond should have been reduced, but noted that the district court no longer
had jurisdiction, as the matter was bound over to Recorder’s Court. Appellant victim was given notice
and appeared at the district court proceedings.
On the same day that the district court denied rehearing, defendant sought review of the bond
decision in Recorder’s Court, pursuant to MCR 6.106(H). Appellant was not notified of the
proceedings. After consultation with the district court, the Recorder’s Court reduced the bond to
$5,000, with a 10% provision.
Plaintiff moved for rehearing, which was held the next day. Appellant appeared at that hearing,
and requested that the bond reduction order be set aside and a new hearing held. Appellant argued that
the bond did not contain adequate conditions. The court recounted the process it followed in reducing
the bond, and stated that it was satisfied with its decision, but that appellant or the prosecutor could
notice the issue for hearing before the arraignment judge.
This Court granted appellant’s application for leave to appeal, limited to the issue of whether a
crime victim has independent standing to assert rights under Const 1963, art 1, § 24.
Standing requires that a party have a legally protected interest in jeopardy of being adversely
affected in a manner differently than the citizenry at large. People v Yeoman, 218 Mich App 406, 420;
554 NW2d 577 (1996). Const 1963, art 1, § 24 provides crime victims with enumerated rights
including the right to notification of all court proceedings, the right to attend trial, the right to confer with
the prosecution, and the right to make a statement to the court at sentencing. It further provides that the
Legislature may provide by law for the enforcement of the section. The Crime Victim’s Rights Act,
MCL 780.756(2); MSA 28.1287(756)(2), provides that if requested by the victim, the prosecuting
attorney shall give the victim notice of any scheduled court proceedings.
There is no indication that § 24 or the Crime Victim’s Rights Act was intended to grant a crime
victim standing independent of the prosecutor to assert rights under § 24. The Crime Victim’s Rights
Act does not purport to confer general remedial rights on victims or prosecutors. People v Pfeiffer,
207 Mich App 151, 157; 523 NW2d 640 (1994). A prosecutor’s failure to give required notice of
proceedings to the victim does not invalidate a court’s action, such as imposing sentence. Id., 160.
Where the bond decision was subject to rehearing, at which appellant appeared, and was also subject
to de novo review at the arraignment on information, MCR 6.106(H)(2)(b), the constitutional provision
could be adequately enforced without allowing independent standing for the crime victim.
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Hilda R. Gage