Comments
Smoky wrote:
I have a 10 yr open felony warrant from 53rd district court Howell Michigan, I knew these f@€ers had it in for me. I split to Europe, I lived in holland and been good, minus a drug charge I picked up in Burgaria for growing some pot with a friend. Now my passport has expired and the government will not renew my passport, unless I resolve the felony warrant I have all the way in BFE Howell, which is also know for the HQ of the KKK :( with a European last name....tell me about it. So any ideas????
04/09 11:40:40
refadmin wrote:
Dear Charlene:
I don't know why a warrant from 1988 would still show up. Hire an attorney to help you clear it up or go to the courthouse and clear it up yourself. It may take some time and effort, but you can do it.
I don't know why a warrant from 1988 would still show up. Hire an attorney to help you clear it up or go to the courthouse and clear it up yourself. It may take some time and effort, but you can do it.
18/11 12:16:19
refadmin wrote:
Dear Kathleen:
Destruction of property would fall under the 6 year statute of limitation.
Destruction of property would fall under the 6 year statute of limitation.
18/11 12:13:15
refadmin wrote:
Dear Ter Hamplin:
If I were your son's attorney, I would feel confident in fighting any charge based upon 1997 facts. Witnesses are long gone and if any were found, their testimony would not likely be credible due to the passage of time. Even if the evidence was fresh, under the circumstances, your son's clean record for so many years, would provide for leniency. Tell him not to be afraid. NEVER let fear control. Answer the letter and request an attorney. Attack the situation with confidence from the starting gate.
If I were your son's attorney, I would feel confident in fighting any charge based upon 1997 facts. Witnesses are long gone and if any were found, their testimony would not likely be credible due to the passage of time. Even if the evidence was fresh, under the circumstances, your son's clean record for so many years, would provide for leniency. Tell him not to be afraid. NEVER let fear control. Answer the letter and request an attorney. Attack the situation with confidence from the starting gate.
18/11 12:11:28
Ter hamplin wrote:
My Son In Law was charged with felony assault when he was 17 in Michigan...he is now 33 and has been and is currently a wonderful young man and father. He recently received a letter from Michigan Courts to contact him. His windows were shot out he ran out side with a lamp jumped the young gang banger and was charged with assault in 1997. His mother moved to New York and now he receives this letter and has been a wreck. Can they do anything to him now in 2010
18/11 11:57:39
kathleen wrote:
i was just wondering i was charged with destruction of private property is there a statue of limations it happened in 2000 it has been 10 yrs??
11/10 09:26:32
charlene wrote:
a michigan district court sent me notice of warrant from collections department for SM charge from 1988. I have not lived there since and had no knowledge of this at all. the overdue amount is one dollar. I was told at the time by university legal aid office that it was all cleared and expunged. do these warrents stay for ever, or show up out of state
22/05 00:35:41
refadmin wrote:
Dear Ms. Martinez:
If you are pulled over or arrested and the warrant shows up, the police may contact the issuing state and find out what they want to do. Depending on the seriousness of the crime, you may be extradited.
If you are pulled over or arrested and the warrant shows up, the police may contact the issuing state and find out what they want to do. Depending on the seriousness of the crime, you may be extradited.
22/09 03:41:54
refadmin wrote:
Dear Marlene:
If you are concerned about the action / inaction your counsel took, then you should discuss that with her. However, it appears that the case was charged in a timely manner. Furthermore, it is typical for dates to be rescheduled. The incorrect date in the judgment appears to be a clerical error and would have no substantive impact one way or the other.
If you are concerned about the action / inaction your counsel took, then you should discuss that with her. However, it appears that the case was charged in a timely manner. Furthermore, it is typical for dates to be rescheduled. The incorrect date in the judgment appears to be a clerical error and would have no substantive impact one way or the other.
22/09 02:33:53
cynthia martinez wrote:
If you live in Illinois and also work in chicago and know you have a bench warrant issued by a judge in Hammond Indiana. For refusing to resolve the matter or appear in court 2 times. Can you be arrested in chicago illinois and extradited to indiana lake county court.
05/09 21:12:00
refadmin wrote:
Dear Mona:
The statute of limitation is based upon the facts of the situation - i.e. what conduct took place. For example, if sexual penetration was involved, then there is no statute of limitation. Consider sending me a private email at lawref@lawrefs.com with specific facts and I will provide you with a definitive answer.
The statute of limitation is based upon the facts of the situation - i.e. what conduct took place. For example, if sexual penetration was involved, then there is no statute of limitation. Consider sending me a private email at lawref@lawrefs.com with specific facts and I will provide you with a definitive answer.
01/09 15:59:08
MOna wrote:
My daughter was sexually molested in the first degree by her grandfather in 1993 (age 11). She just told us about it in August of 2009 (age 27). We wanted to prosecute but the detective said that because it happened prior to 2001 we only had until her 21st birthday or May of 2007 (whichever was later) to file charges-is this correct?
01/09 14:10:08
Your comment
Comments must be approved before being published. Thank you!
03/11: Michigan Criminal Law Statute of Limitations
The Michigan statute of limitations on crimes is found at MCL 767.24. It provides different periods of limitation based upon the crime as follows:767.24 Indictments; finding and filing; limitations.
(1) An indictment for murder, conspiracy to commit murder, solicitation to commit murder, criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, or a violation of the Michigan anti-terrorism act, MCL 750.543a to 750.543z, or a violation of MCL 750.200 to 750.212a, that is punishable by life imprisonment may be found and filed at any time.
(2) An indictment for a violation or attempted violation of section 145c, 520c, 520d, 520e, or 520g of the Michigan penal code, MCL 750.145c, 750.520c, 750.520d, 750.520e, and 750.520g, may be found and filed as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), an indictment may be found and filed within 10 years after the offense is committed or by the alleged victim's twenty-first birthday, whichever is later.
(b) If evidence of the violation is obtained and that evidence contains DNA that is determined to be from an unidentified individual, an indictment against that individual for the violation may be found and filed at any time after the offense is committed. However, after the individual is identified, the indictment may be found and filed within 10 years after the individual is identified or by the alleged victim's twenty-first birthday, whichever is later.
(c) As used in this subsection:
(i) "DNA" means human deoxyribonucleic acid.
(ii) "Identified" means the individual's legal name is known and he or she has been determined to be the source of the DNA.
(3) An indictment for kidnapping, extortion, assault with intent to commit murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, or first-degree home invasion may be found and filed within 10 years after the offense is committed.
(4) An indictment for identity theft or attempted identity theft may be found and filed as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), an indictment may be found and filed within 6 years after the offense is committed.
(b) If evidence of the violation is obtained and the individual who committed the offense has not been identified, an indictment may be found and filed at any time after the offense is committed, but not more than 6 years after the individual is identified.
(c) As used in this subsection:
(i) "Identified" means the individual's legal name is known.
(ii) "Identity theft" means 1 or more of the following:
(A) Conduct prohibited in section 5 or 7 of the identity theft protection act, 2004 PA 452, MCL 445.65 and 445.67.
(B) Conduct prohibited under former section 285 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328.
(5) All other indictments may be found and filed within 6 years after the offense is committed.
(6) Any period during which the party charged did not usually and publicly reside within this state is not part of the time within which the respective indictments may be found and filed.
(7) The extension or tolling, as applicable, of the limitations period provided in this section applies to any of those violations for which the limitations period has not expired at the time the extension or tolling takes effect.
The different periods are indefinitely, ten years, and six years. An essential element of contention when considering the criminal statute of limitations is the necessity of an "indictment". According to Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition, an indictment is a formal written accusation originating with a prosecutor and issued by a grand jury against a party charged with a crime. Furthermore, the sole purpose of the indictment is to identify the defendant's alleged offense. Practically speaking, an "information" is used rather than an indictment. The information is an accusation in the nature of an indictment, but differs only in being presented by a public prosecutor, without the intervention of the grand jury.
A situation arose recently (October 2007) wherein the defendant was arrested for an incident that occurred in 1996. The defense counsel filed an appearance and requested the Complaint and Information, however, merely an incident report was provided. There was no information. The argument made by the defense was that the statute of limitations had run based upon MCL 767.24(5). The prosecution's counter argument that the charge was timely was faulty because an incident report is not an indictment or an information and is not tantamount to a formal written accusation. The case was dismissed.
Defense counsel should be well-aware of the statute of limitations and argue this at the pretrial/preliminary hearing. Furthermore, it is generally ill-advised to accept any kind of plea agreement as witnesses in old cases are unlikely to appear and/or have a detailed memory of the events and circumstances of the crime - don't back down.