Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v MARQUIS L. HARLAN, Defendant-Appellee.

FOR PUBLICATION August 14, 2003 9:05 a.m. No. 237281 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 01-006895 Updated Copy October 10, 2003

Before: Jansen, P.J., and Neff and Kelly, JJ. JANSEN, P.J. Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), MCL 750.227; felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. The trial court granted defendant's pretrial motion to quash counts two and three, felon in possession of a firearm and felony-firearm. Defendant then pleaded guilty of CCW. This Court initially dismissed the prosecutor's claim of appeal because the judgment of sentence was based on a plea of guilty and therefore not appealable as of right. MCR 7.203(A)(1)(b). The prosecution is now before this Court on remand from the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the trial court's decision quashing counts two and three. 466 Mich 864 (2002). We reverse and remand. The prosecution first contends that this Court erred by dismissing its claim of appeal. The prosecution argues that it was not appealing defendant's guilty plea, and that an appeal of right was proper because the appeal was taken from a final order dismissing counts two and three. We disagree. The totality of the prosecution's argument is expressed in the following paragraph taken from the prosecution's brief: The People are not seeking to challenge the count to which defendant pled guilty and received probation. The People only seek to appeal the granting of the motion to quash Counts 2 and 3, and both the Information and docket entries show that there is a final judgment. MCR 7.203(A).

-1-


The mere statement of a party's position without citation of relevant authority is generally insufficient to present an issue for this Court's review. People v Jones (On Rehearing), 201 Mich App 449, 456-457; 506 NW2d 542 (1993). This Court ordinarily declines to review issues for which a party has failed to provide authority, and will not search for authority to support or contradict a party's argument. People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 587; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). Nevertheless, in this case our Supreme Court has directed this Court to consider the prosecutor's argument and we will therefore address this claim. The issue whether the prosecutor could appeal the granting of defendant's motion to quash the charges of felon in possession of a firearm and felony-firearm, by claiming an appeal of right from the judgment of sentence, is a legal issue that involves interpretation of statutes and court rules. This Court's "purpose is to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent." People v Morey, 461 Mich 325, 329-330; 603 NW2d 250 (1999). This Court examines the plain language of the statute or court rule. Where that language is unambiguous, no further judicial construction is warranted, because the Court presumes that the Legislature intended the meaning it plainly expressed. Morey, supra at 330. Const 1963, art 1,

Download 20030814_C237281_65_157O.237281.OPN.COA.PDF

Michigan Law