PEOPLE OF MI V DESHAWN ANTHONY WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 199994
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 94-007770
DESHAWN ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Jansen and Hoekstra, JJ.
HOEKSTRA, J. (concurring.)
I agree with the majority’s resolution of issue II and its ultimate conclusion to affirm defendant’s
convictions; however, I part company from the majority in its analysis of issue I because I do not find
that the record supports its conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial.
My review of the record indicates that the missing attorney, the original defense counsel appointed to
this case, was well acquainted with the facts of this case and the possible defense theories. The record
reveals no reason to believe that the other counsel present in the courtroom on the trial date in question
were there to assume defendant’s case without delay or further inconvenience to the twice-recalled
jurors. Indeed, the record implies that the other counsel were there merely for the purpose of providing
the trial court with an explanation for the absence of defense counsel. Although the trial court failed to
create a clear record of the proceedings, its decision to declare a mistrial in this case already fraught
with delays and inconveniences does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of a decision made without
justification or excuse. See People v Ullah, 216 Mich App 669, 673; 550 NW2d 568 (1996)
(describing when an abuse of discretion exists).
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-1
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.
