Prosecution request to nolle prosequi charges against defendants after the trial court rejected Cobbs pleas; Genesee Cnty Prosecutor v Genesee Circuit Judge; People v Curtis; MCL 769.29; People v Grove

Holding that the trial court’s authority to deny the prosecution’s request to nolle prosequi charges was limited and that it exceeded that limited authority in doing so here, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the nolle prosequi and enter an order dismissing the charges. For the trial court to have the authority to deny a nolle prosequi, it must be shown that the prosecution “is committing malfeasance, or otherwise is acting in an unconstitutional, illegal, or ultra vires manner. And this must be evaluated in light of the fact that the trial court’s authority in the first place to reject a nolle prosequi is to safeguard the defendant’s rights and to protect against prosecutorial harassment. None of these conditions” were shown here. The court noted that defendants did not object to the nolle prosequi request. In fact, it was prompted by an agreement between the defense and the prosecution that “the best course of action was a juvenile disposition rather than adult incarceration, including the availability of rehabilitation services in the juvenile justice system.” Additionally, the court was not persuaded that there was “any indication of an improper motive by” the prosecution or that “granting leave of the court to dismiss the charges would in any way be contrary to the public interest.” It appeared that the trial court’s decision was rooted in its view that dismissing the charges would infringe upon its role in sentencing. The court disagreed, noting that the prosecution’s “charging decision affects the sentence that a trial court may impose” and that, had the prosecution “originally decided to only proceed in the family division, there never would have been the possibility of there being an adult conviction upon which the trial court could impose an adult sentence.”