Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers
Washtenaw County Bar Association
AVVO Clients' Choice Award 2017
MIAOWIA

A new law will enable qualifying non-citizens to be released from prison early for the purposes of deportation. To qualify, the prisoner must have served half the minimum sentence.

Prisoners convicted of murder in the first or second degree, criminal sexual conduct in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree, or sentenced as a habitual offender will be ineligible for this parole.

In the event that the paroled prisoner is not deported after release, the Department of Corrections will assume custody of the prisoner and he or she will be returned to prison.

The following is an outline of Michigan Criminal Law Legislation in the year of 2010;

I. New Crimes and Penalties

A. Alcohol.

1. Beer Kegs. 2010 PA 344. Effective Dec. 21, 2010. Requires sold beer kegs to have an identification tag that allows the keg to be traced to the purchaser. It is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 93 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both, to do any of the following;

The Supreme Court of the United States in Padilla v. Kentucky ruled that attorneys representing a non-citizen defendant must advise that a guilty plea may result in adverse immigration consequences.

Specifically, the Supreme Court held that where deportation consequences for the defendant are clear, counsel has a duty to warn of the consequences. However, where the deportation consequences are not clear, counsel need do no more than advise the defendant that a conviction may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.

Padilla was a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years who plead guilty to drug-distribution charges. On appeal from the conviction, Padilla argued that his attorney did not advise him of the consequence of deportation that could result from a conviction, and that his attorney told him that deportation would not occur because he had resided in the country for so long. Padilla claimed that he would not have plead guilty to the charge had he known the potential consequences.

The Court of Appeals in People v. Yamat discusses what it means to “operate”  a vehicle. Although the Yamat case dealt with a charge of felonious driving, the case is relevant for an operating while intoxicating charge.

What Happened in the Case

Defendant was a passenger in a car and his girlfriend was the driver. The couple had an argument. Defendant grabbed the steering wheel and turned the car. The vehicle then veered off the road, and hit a jogger, who suffered injuries.

The defendant was charged with felonious driving. At the preliminary exam, the district court refused to bind over the defendant because it believed the prosecution did not meet its burden as to operation of the vehicle. The circuit court affirmed, saying the defendant did not have complete control over the vehicle.

In the case of People v. Lechleitner, the Court of Appeals focuses on the definition of “operate” in operating while intoxicated.

Facts of the Case

The Defendant Lechleitner drove with a blood alcohol content of .12. While he was driving, he lost control and stopped his vehicle. The truck was stopped in the middle of two lanes of the freeway. He turned off his headlights but put on his flashers. He opened the door of the truck to start pushing the car with his leg.

The Case of People v. Brown focuses on a statute regarding anabolic steroids.

What Happened in the Case

The Defendant in this case was a police officer. Defendant was being investigated for possible anabolic steroid use. The investigating officer contacted an inspector in the Postal Service Office to intercept any suspicious packages going to a P.O. Box owned by Defendant.

The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Barbarich tackled the issue of whether a traffic stop was justified when the only basis for the stop was a tip from an unnamed person who told a police officer a driver was being dangerous or reckless. The driver in this case was charged with operating while intoxicated.

What Happened In the Case

On St. Patrick’s Day, a Michigan State Trooper was out on patrol near a bar when he encountered a driver who pointed to Defendant’s car and mouthed the words, “almost hit me.” The Trooper then pursued the car, pulled over the driver, and arrested her for operating while intoxicated.

The Trooper never spoke to that first driver, and stated the stop was based solely on the tip from the driver. The Trooper acknowledged he never saw any bad driving that would justify a traffic stop.

It is against the law in Michigan to sniff glue to get high.

State Law on Glue Sniffing

Michigan Law prohibits a person from intentionally inhaling or smelling glue to produce intoxication or euphoria. Sniffing glue is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 93 days in jail, fines and court costs, or both. MCL 752.272.

In addition to the state law, there are both City of Ann Arbor and City of Ypsilanti ordinances prohibiting the use of model glues to get high. Both ordinances also prohibit aiding and abetting a minor to use model glues to get high.

The Michigan Court of Appeals in the case of People v. Boomer struck down a hundred year-old law on the books that made using bad language in front of women and children a crime.

What Happened in the Case

The case took place on the Rifle River up in Arenac County, Michigan. Mr. Boomer was canoeing down the river when he fell into the water. Mr. Boomer let out a stream of profanities, slapped the water, and threw his hands in the air. Presumably, Mr. Boomer was upset he fell into the water. There were many women and children on the water that day who could hear these profanities.

An enterprising deputy from the sheriff’s department heard the commotion and the defendant’s vulgar language from about a quarter mile away. The deputy issued the defendant a ticket for a violation of MCL 750.337. The ticket was written as part of a crackdown by local law enforcement for complaints about canoeists on the river.

Contact Information