State of Michigan v Corey Allan Saylor

×

Error message

  • Deprecated function: Creation of dynamic property MailchimpSignup::$status is deprecated in EntityAPIController->load() (line 256 of /home3/howtosu2/public_html/DRUPAL/sites/all/modules/entity/includes/entity.controller.inc).
  • Deprecated function: Creation of dynamic property MailchimpSignup::$module is deprecated in EntityAPIController->load() (line 256 of /home3/howtosu2/public_html/DRUPAL/sites/all/modules/entity/includes/entity.controller.inc).
  • Deprecated function: Creation of dynamic property MailchimpSignup::$rdf_mapping is deprecated in rdf_entity_load() (line 412 of /home3/howtosu2/public_html/DRUPAL/modules/rdf/rdf.module).
Citation: 
State of Michigan v Corey Allan Saylor
Case Summary: 

State of Michigan v COREY ALLAN SAYLOR

No. 215673

Michigan Court of Appeals

November 23, 1999, Decided

Unpublished

Prior case history: Grand Traverse Circuit Court. LC No. 97-007329 FH.

Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Gribbs and White, JJ.

OPINION

     MEMORANDUM.

     Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted his plea-based conviction of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUIL), third offense, MCL 257.625(7)(d); MSA 9.2325(7)(d). Based on subsequent developments, we vacate the order granting defendant leave to appeal. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).

     Defendant's plea of guilty to OUIL, third offense, was conditioned on the validity of the two prior OUIL convictions. The trial court sentenced defendant to forty to sixty months in prison, with credit for 161 days. Another panel of this Court granted defendant's delayed application for leave to appeal the conviction of OUIL, third offense.

     Defendant filed a delayed application for leave to appeal the trial court's order affirming decisions by the district court denying his motions to withdraw the pleas which resulted in the two prior OUIL convictions (Docket No. 216747). Another panel of this Court denied the delayed application for lack of merit.

     In the instant appeal, defendant presents no substantive issues for appellate review. He argues only that these proceedings should be held in abeyance pending a decision in Docket No. 216747, or that this matter should be remanded if relief is granted in Docket No. 216747. Defendant was not granted the relief he sought from this Court in Docket No. 216747. Therefore, we vacate the order granting defendant's delayed application for leave to appeal the instant case. 1

     Appeal dismissed.

      /s/ William C. Whitbeck

     /s/ Roman S. Gribbs

     /s/ Helene N. White