Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STEVEN Z. COHEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DAVID NERENBERG, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED June 8, 2010

No. 290569 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 1995-502501-PH

LEAH DICKMAN ROSENBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DAVID NERENBERG, Defendant-Appellant. No. 290570 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2003-687930-PH

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and WILDER and GLEICHER, JJ. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, defendant appeals as of right from two convictions of criminal contempt. Defendant was sentenced to 93 days' jail for each conviction. We affirm.1 Defendant's convictions arise from his continual harassment of two unrelated individuals. In docket no. 290569, defendant began stalking and harassing the victim in 1995. The victim received a personal protection order (PPO) against defendant, which was set to expire in September 2005. Defendant did not abide by the PPO and was twice convicted of criminal contempt for violating the PPO; he received 10 days' jail and no sentence for those convictions, respectively. As of 2004, however, defendant continued to violate the PPO. Similarly, in docket no. 290570, a PPO was issued against defendant, which prohibited him from stalking and

1

These appeals have been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).

-1-

harassing an employee of his previous employer. Defendant also violated this order. Thus, in April 2004, defendant was convicted of criminal contempt in both cases and sentenced to 93 days' jail for each conviction. Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a trial by jury. We disagree. We review constitutional issues de novo. Brandt v Brandt, 250 Mich App 68, 72; 645 NW2d 327 (2002). The Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art I,

Download STEVEN Z COHEN V DAVID NERENBERG.pdf

Michigan Law