|
State of Michigan v Robert Owen Hanes |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Robert William Miller |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Ronald Dale Germaine |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Ronnie Frank Jones |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Sadows, 283 Mich App 65; 768 NW2d 93 (2009) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
Heidi's Law does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. |
|
State of Michigan v Sanchez, Docket No. 284987, unpublished September 29, 2009 (2009) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
Trial court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's request to represent himself and waive his right to counsel was unequivocal, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Although defendant also discussed the option of hiring another attorney, he indicated that he was not satisfied with his appointed counsel, wanted him discharged, and felt he would be better off representing himself. He also indicated that he understood, after the trial court's repeated warnings, that he would not be appointed another attorney or stand-by counsel, so his options were to represent himself or try to hire another attorney in the few weeks before the rescheduled trial. The trial court warned defendant that it might be difficult to find another attorney. Defendant also indicated that he was "going to enjoy" representing himself on the first day of trial. |
|
State of Michigan v Stiehl, Docket No. 283641, unpublished September 15, 2009 (2009) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
Driver following accident was 0.06. Dr. Felix Adatsi from the Michigan State Police Toxicology Unit was permitted to testify to retrograde extrapolation, claiming that the driver was .09 at the time of driving based on nothing more than standard alcohol elimination rates. Without extensive information, retrograde extrapolation is junk science. Defendant discharged his attorney during the trial, so it seems likely that the prosecutor was able to roll out this bogus science without a fight. |
|
State of Michigan v Thompson, Docket No. 287737, unpublished November 5, 2009 (2009) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
Defendant's sixth conviction for driving while intoxicated and second conviction of fleeing and eluding. The sentencing guidelines recommended a minimum sentence of ten to 46 months' imprisonment for the fleeing conviction, and ten to 48 months' imprisonment for the OUIL conviction. The minimum actually imposed, eight years (96 months) was an upward departure affirmed on appeal. |
|
State of Michigan v Timmer, Docket No. 287676, unpublished October 22, 2009 (2009) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
Where Defendant was convicted of Operating While Intoxicated 3rd Offense at a bench trial, reversal was required because the trial court failed to follow the procedure outlined in MCR 6.402(B) governing the waiver of the right to a jury trial. This is structural error and requires reversal. It did not matter that Defendant failed to affirmatively object at the bench trial. |
|
State of Michigan v Travis William Hatfield |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2009 |
---------------------------------------- |