People v. Segura

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MATTHEW JAMES SEGURA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 362340

Court of Appeals of Michigan

August 31, 2023

Chippewa Circuit Court LC No. 22-016778-AR

Before: Cameron, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and M. J. Kelly, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecutor appeals by leave granted^[1] the circuit court's order vacating defendant's sentence following his no-contest plea to one count of domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2), and remanding to the district court for resentencing. The issues in this case arose after defendant sought leave to appeal the district court's sentence on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court granted the application and without further briefing from the parties, granted defendant the relief he sought and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing. This remand order was entered after the circuit court granted defendant's motion for reconsideration of the court's earlier order dismissing his appeal for failure to file proof that that fee for the appeal had been tendered. Because defendant's motion for reconsideration lacked merit, the circuit court abused its discretion when it entered the order. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 26, 2022, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2). At the time the offense took place, defendant was already on probation for assault and battery and malicious destruction of property, which also made the domestic violence offense a probation violation. The plea agreement made between defendant and the prosecutor stipulated that defendant would be sentenced to serve 60 days. In accordance with that plea agreement, the district court sentenced defendant.

Soon after sentencing, defendant retained new counsel and, on February 16, 2022, filed an application for leave to appeal to the circuit court, arguing that his prior counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing that affected the outcome of his sentence. More specifically, defendant contended that prior counsel pressured him to take the plea agreement and failed to give important information to the district court about the victim's "correspondence with the prosecuting attorney, the time [defendant] spent on tether, the money he spent to be on tether, [and] the jail credit he had." Defendant also filed in the circuit court a motion to stay his sentence pending the resolution of his appeal.

On March 16, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing regarding the motion to stay defendant's sentence pending appeal. During the hearing, the circuit court stated it was inclined to grant defendant's motion to stay, at which point, the parties and circuit court agreed that a bond was necessary. Defense counsel explained that in his previous bond, defendant had "reported] to Mr. Ferroni" each Monday before 8:00 a.m. for what appears to have been drug testing. Other conditions of the prior bond appeared to be that defendant "could not break any law or any unit of government," "shall report truthfully to Mr. Ferroni . . . any law enforcement contact," was "subject to any further testing upon demand of any law enforcement officer," would not leave Michigan, would "not get involved in any assaultive or threatening behavior," and would not possess "guns, no bombs, no weapons." Defendant had previously been on a tether as well.

The prosecutor stated that she had no "problem with the personal recognizance bond" so long as (1) a tether was imposed; (2) there was "test[ing] through the tethering department, so they can then monitor him once a week, whatever it may be"; and (3) "the other conditions that [defense counsel] proposed with the weapons and so on and so forth." The prosecutor also stated that she wanted the conditions in MCR 7.209(F)(2)^[2] to be complied with as well, which defendant agreed to comply with. Defendant, however, opposed the tether condition suggested by the prosecutor but agreed with the condition of testing with the tether department.

The circuit court agreed that the tether condition was unnecessary. The parties and circuit court also appeared to agree on testing with the tether department each Monday as well as random testing. Ultimately, the circuit court stated that it would grant the motion to stay and allow the prosecution to file a response to defendant's application for leave to appeal. Regarding the bond and order, defense counsel stated that she would "get the order to the court and then [defendant] will be required to come to my office immediately upon release to sign that [MCR] 7.209 and I will get that filed with the court."

It appears that, close to the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel e-mailed a proposed order to the prosecutor and circuit court. Within one hour, the circuit court clerk e-mailed the parties the circuit court's signed written order. This order stated that defendant's personal recognizance bond was conditioned on testing at the Chippewa County Sheriff Department on Mondays, any random testing, and signing a bond-condition form. The written order was entered that same day.

The prosecutor immediately filed an objection to the written order, arguing that it failed to include the conditions agreed upon at the hearing. Although no formal order was apparently entered denying the prosecutor's objections, the court clerk sent an e-mail stating that the circuit court reviewed the prosecutor's objections "and determined that the order will remain as signed as the MCR 7.209(F)(2) conditions have been signed, filed, and served by the defense counsel."

On April 28, 2022, the circuit court granted defendant's application for leave to appeal; no other activity occurred, and defendant did not file an appeal brief. On May 23, 2022, the circuit court clerk filed a "Notice of Intent to Dismiss Appeal," which stated that defendant's appeal was "deficient" for failing to file "[p]roof that the appeal fee of the Trial Court has been tendered." Defendant's counsel responded by e-mailing the prosecution and circuit court, stating that "the prosecutor's answer was due on May 19th" and that she "had not been served."

The following day, the prosecutor filed a "Notice of Need to Comply with MCR 7.113(A)," arguing that defendant failed to file an appeal brief and failed to pay the necessary filing fees. According to the prosecutor, she intended to file a brief in response but was waiting for defendant's brief before doing so. Defendant responded, contending that the prosecutor lacked standing to file the notice and requested that the circuit court strike the prosecution's response. Defendant contended that he had complied with the applicable rules and filed an appeal brief at the same time the application for leave to appeal was filed.

On June 8, 2022, the circuit court entered an order dismissing defendant's appeal, stating that "[t]he appellant was sent a notice of deficiency on 05/24/2022 and did not remedy the deficiency within 14 days after the notice was served." Defendant moved for reconsideration,^[3] arguing that he had complied with the applicable court rules and that the appeal had been erroneously dismissed. In the motion, defendant argued that the application for leave to appeal was filed under MCR 7.105 and, because the application was granted, the circuit court must have found "that the Court Rules have been satisfied." With respect to the issue of the filing fee, defendant argued that "[t]he Court Rule does not require any proof of a filing fee to be filed with the County Clerk's Office."

Without a hearing or further briefing from the parties, the circuit court granted defendant's motion, reasoning that, "[a]fter careful review and consideration of the matter, the Court grants Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration." Additionally, and again without any further briefing from the parties, the circuit court entered an order vacating defendant's sentence and remanding to the district court for resentencing. The order stated:

Upon a careful and considered examination of the pleadings and Affidavit of Defendant/Appellant, the Court determines that there is merit to the Argument of Appeal in that the District Court may have imposed a different sentence if the Court considered the totality of information and circumstances contained in the basis for appeal.

At resentencing the District Court will have an opportunity to consider the aforementioned information and may impose the same or a different sentence(s).

Curiously, the order also stated that the circuit court was "not in a position to make findings on Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

The prosecutor raises three issues on appeal. First, the prosecutor argues that the circuit court erred when it entered defendant's proposed order concerning the bond because it did not conform to the court's ruling made from the bench and was entered sua sponte over the prosecutor's objection in violation of the court rules. Second, the prosecutor argues the circuit court erred when it granted defendant's appeal and vacated his sentence, because the court did not allow the prosecutor to be heard regarding the merits. And third, the prosecutor argues the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted defendant's motion for reconsideration because defendant did not establish proper grounds for the motion. We agree with the prosecutor that the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted defendant's motion for reconsideration and, because that issue is dispositive of this appeal, we need not address the other two issues raised in the brief.

A. STANDARDS OF...