People v Conat, et al, __ Mich App __ (1999), ##218204, 219258, 219259, 219958, October 19, 1999
Juvenile Review MenuIn these four consolidated cases, the prosecuting attorneys appealed circuit court orders finding MCL 769.1, as amended by 1996 PA 247, unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the cases for trial.
MCL 769.1, as amended, applies to “automatic” or prosecutorial waiver cases. If a juvenile aged 14 to 17 years is charged with a “specified juvenile violation,” the prosecuting attorney may elect to file a complaint and warrant in “adult court” rather than filing a petition in “juvenile court.” The amendment in question requires the circuit court to sentence juveniles convicted of 12 very serious “specified juvenile violations” as adults upon conviction. The court retains no discretion to “waive the juvenile back” into the juvenile system by committing the juvenile to the Family Independence Agency. In the instant cases, the circuit courts found that this regime violated the separation of powers doctrine, the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and Michigan constitutions, procedural due process requirements, and the Michigan Supreme Court’s authority to govern procedure in Michigan courts.
The Court of Appeals first held that the statutory amendment did not violate the separation of powers doctrine by assigning judicial sentencing discretion to the prosecuting attorney. The separation of powers doctrine is intended to prevent exercise by one branch of government of the whole power assigned to another branch of government. Under the amended statute in question, the prosecuting attorney does not impose sentence (a judicial function); rather, as in the adult criminal justice system, a prosecuting attorney’s charging decision affects the sentence that may be imposed. MCL 769.1 is a permissible legislative limitation on judicial sentencing discretion, and the court still maintains discretion to fashion an individualized (adult) sentence.
Nor does MCL 769.1 violate Equal Protection. The defendants did not argue that the statutory classification – those eligible to be charged under the “automatic” or prosecutorial waiver regime and those not eligible to be so charged – itself violated the juveniles’ equal protection rights. Instead, the defendants argued that the prosecuting attorney’s charging discretion, when exercised, would result in an arbitrary classification of some juveniles who would be sentenced as adults upon conviction and some who would be treated “as juveniles.” However, the Court of Appeals found that the defendants had not shown intentional discrimination based on impermissible factors by prosecuting attorneys in the exercise of their charging discretion.
The Court of Appeals held that the statute did not violate state and federal procedural due process guarantees. Although a “juvenile sentencing hearing” was required in all “automatic” waiver cases before the amendment, such a hearing was not constitutionally required. The Court of Appeals stated that there is no constitutional right to be treated as a juvenile. In addition, the Court found Kent v United States, 383 US 541 (1966), inapplicable. Kent does not apply to an “automatic” or prosecutorial waiver regime; rather, the “full investigation” and hearing required by Kent applies to a “traditional” or judicial waiver regime. See MCL 712A.4. Finally, the lack of standards to guide the prosecuting attorney’s charging discretion, by itself, does not violate procedural due process requirements.
MCR 6.931 has not been amended to conform to the 1996 amendment of MCL 769.1. Thus, statute and court rule conflict. However, because the statutory amendment dealt with substantive, not procedural, law, the amendment did not intrude upon the Michigan Supreme Court’s authority to promulgate procedural rules for Michigan courts. The statutory amendment was concerned with a wide-reaching questions of policy (the treatment of juveniles who commit serious crimes), not with procedural matters.
Hoekstra, J, concurred but wrote separately to state that he viewed the issue as one of jurisdiction. The statutory scheme within which amended MCL 769.1 is placed provides the prosecuting attorney with a choice of courts in which to file charges. This jurisdictional choice has sentencing consequences but does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Return to Calhoun County Courts Homepage
Last updated 10-29-99
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161
E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
or e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov