 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Wemigwans3/4/2003
UNPUBLISHED
ON REHEARING
The prosecution appeals by leave granted from the circuit court's order quashing the information using defendant's prior tribal court convictions for purposes of supporting the felony charge of operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUIL), MCL 257.625(10)(c). We reverse and remand.
I. Facts and Procedure
On June 25, 2001, defendant was arrested for drunk driving following a traffic stop. Defendant had no prior OUIL convictions in Michigan courts, but he had two convictions for OUIL in the tribal court of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan. Upon discovery of the tribal convictions, the prosecution sought to use the tribal court convictions to enhance defendant's charge from a drunk driving misdemeanor to felony drunk driving, OUIL 3rd, MCL 257.625(10)(c).
On November 11, 2001, defendant filed two motions to quash the tribal convictions. The trial court granted defendant's motions and quashed the use of the two prior tribal courts' drunk driving convictions, concluding that defendant did not receive sufficient due process safeguards in the tribal courts. In both prior actions before the tribal court, defendant was convicted by plea, without the benefit of counsel. The trial court concluded that defendant was denied sufficient due process because an indigent defendant in the tribal system is not entitled to the appointment of counsel.
II. Analysis
On appeal, the prosecution argues that defendant's prior tribal court convictions may be used to enhance the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony. Generally, this Court would review a trial court's decision to quash an information solely for an abuse of discretion. People v Hamblin, 224 Mich App 87, 91; 568 NW2d 339 (1997). This case, however, turns upon questions of statutory interpretation and constitutional due process concerns. We review de novo these legal questions. People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 546; 520 NW2d 123 (1994); People v Pennington, 240 Mich App 188, 191; 610 NW2d 608 (2000); People v Nimeth, 236 Mich App 616, 620; 601 NW2d 393 (1999).
The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent. Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co v Marlette Homes, 456 Mich 511, 515; 573 NW2d 611 (1998). If the plain and ordinary meaning of a statute is clear, judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted. Elia v Hazen, 242 Mich App 374, 381; 619 NW2d 1 (2000). We may not speculate as to the probable intent of the Legislature beyond the words expressed in the statute. In re Schnell, 214 Mich App 304, 310; 543 NW2d 11 (1995). When reasonable minds may differ as to the meaning of a statute, the courts must look to the object of the statute, the harm it is designed to remedy, and apply a reasonable construction which best accomplishes the statute's purpose. Marquis v Hartford Accident & Indemnity (After Remand), 444 Mich 638, 644; 513 NW2d 799 (1994).
The Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq., allows the use of prior foreign convictions for charge enhancement in OUIL cases. MCL 257.625(10). Generally, trial courts in Michigan may consider convictions based on "a law of another state substantially corresponding [to Michigan law]." MCL 257.625(23). Michigan law defines "state" broadly to include other states, territories, foreign countries and Indian tribes. MCL 257.65. To establish that the law of the foreign jurisdiction substantially corresponds to Michigan law, the prosecution must prove that the foreign legal system provided defendant with sufficient due process safeguards in the earlier convictions. People v Gaines, 129 Mich
Page 1 2 3 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|