Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v JASON JOHN PETERS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED January 21, 2010

No. 288219 Tuscola Circuit Court LC No. 07-010552-FH

Before: Bandstra, P.J. and Sawyer and Owens, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction by jury of possession of marijuana. MCL 333.7403(2)(d). Defendant was sentenced as a second habitual offender under MCL 333.7413(2) to serve 90 days in jail and 18 months of probation. We affirm. I. Facts Defendant chose to represent himself at trial. An advisory attorney was provided and was available and present at trial. On the morning of trial, defendant sought an adjournment because he had been informed the previous day that the alleged victim of the pending assault charge and another witness associated with that charge would not be testifying. Plaintiff indicated a willingness to drop the assault charge and proceed with trial on the possession of marijuana charge. Defendant objected, but the court agreed with plaintiff and the assault charge was dismissed. The trial court also denied defendant's request for an adjournment predicated on his representation that his defense to the possession charge was so interwoven with the assault charge that it would take hours to disentangle his prepared witness examinations. II. Defendant's Rights to Self-Representation and to Present a Defense Defendant argues that his right to self-representation and his right to present a defense were undercut when the trial court denied his request to adjourn the trial in order to give him more time to prepare his case. We review the court's denial of an adjournment for an abuse of discretion, People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 17; 669 NW2d 831 (2003); MCR 2.503(D)(1), and the question of whether defendant was denied his right to present a defense, de novo, People v Russell, 471 Mich 182, 187; 684 NW2d 745 (2004); People v Kurr, 253 Mich App 317, 327; 654 NW2d 651 (2002).

-1-

Defendant cannot show that he had a legitimate reason to assert that his right to effective self-representation was undermined when he was required to proceed without an adjournment. The United States and Michigan Constitutions protect a defendant's right of self-representation at trial; however, this right is subject to the discretion of the trial court. People v Willing, 267 Mich App 208, 219; 704 NW2d 472 (2005). The record suggests that if defendant was unprepared to proceed following the dismissal of the assault charge, it was because he had been more focused during pretrial with meeting the assault charge than the possession charge. Moreover, defendant cannot show that he was unfairly prejudiced by the court's denial of his motion to adjourn. See People v Echavarria, 233 Mich App 356, 369; 592 NW2d 737 (1999). As recognized below, the assault and possession charges did not arise out of the same transaction, so there was nothing in the circumstances of the charges themselves that would have required a homogeneous defense. Indeed, the transcript shows that defendant cross-examined each of plaintiff's witnesses, often at length. Further, he presented six witnesses and argued his case both before and after proofs. Thus, his due process right to present a defense was not undermined. US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1

Download PEOPLE OF MI V JASON JOHN PETERS.pdf

Michigan Law