Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ARTHUR JAMES BRIDGES, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED July 10, 2008

No. 275300 Bay Circuit Court LC No. 06-010509-FH

Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Jansen and Hoekstra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals following his jury trial conviction of one count of conspiracy to deliver cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and one count of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, MCL 750.157a. We affirm. Defendant first argues on appeal that his conviction should be reversed because he was never properly arraigned on the information. Specifically, defendant contends that the circuit court's alternative arraignment procedure is facially unconstitutional and, alternatively, to the extent that the procedure is constitutional, the court failed to follow its own procedure and defendant's constitutional rights were thereby violated. We disagree. Defendant first raised this issue in a post-trial motion and, thus, the issue is not preserved. People v Willis, 1 Mich App 428, 430-431; 136 NW2d 723 (1965). Because defendant did not preserve the issue, he must show plain error affecting his substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). The right to arraignment is a procedural right guaranteed by the United States and Michigan Constitutions, and by statute. People v Phillips, 383 Mich 464, 470; 175 NW2d 740 (1970); US Const, Ams VI; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V ARTHUR JAMES BRIDGES.pdf

Michigan Law