Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 764 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f (2026)

Juvenile; filing complaint and warrant with magistrate; “specified juvenile violation” defined.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


764.1f Juvenile; filing complaint and warrant with magistrate; “specified juvenile violation” defined.

Sec. 1f.

    (1) If the prosecuting attorney has reason to believe that a juvenile 14 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age has committed a specified juvenile violation, the prosecuting attorney may authorize the filing of a complaint and warrant on the charge with a magistrate concerning the juvenile.

    (2) As used in this section, "specified juvenile violation" means any of the following:

    (a) A violation of section 72, 83, 86, 89, 91, 316, 317, 349, 520b, 529, 529a, or 531 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.72, 750.83, 750.86, 750.89, 750.91, 750.316, 750.317, 750.349, 750.520b, 750.529, 750.529a, and 750.531.

    (b) A violation of section 84 or 110a(2) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.84 and 750.110a, if the juvenile is armed with a dangerous weapon. As used in this subdivision, "dangerous weapon" means 1 or more of the following:

    (i) A loaded or unloaded firearm, whether operable or inoperable.

    (ii) A knife, stabbing instrument, brass knuckles, blackjack, club, or other object specifically designed or customarily carried or possessed for use as a weapon.

    (iii) An object that is likely to cause death or bodily injury when used as a weapon and that is used as a weapon or carried or possessed for use as a weapon.

    (iv) An object or device that is used or fashioned in a manner to lead a person to believe the object or device is an object or device described in subparagraphs (i) to (iii).

    (c) A violation of section 186a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.186a, regarding escape or attempted escape from a juvenile facility, but only if the juvenile facility from which the individual escaped or attempted to escape was 1 of the following:

    (i) A high-security or medium-security facility operated by the family independence agency or a county juvenile agency.

    (ii) A high-security facility operated by a private agency under contract with the family independence agency or a county juvenile agency.

    (d) A violation of section 7401(2)(a)(i) or 7403(2)(a)(i) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7401 and 333.7403.

    (e) An attempt to commit a violation described in subdivisions (a) to (d).

    (f) Conspiracy to commit a violation described in subdivisions (a) to (d).

    (g) Solicitation to commit a violation described in subdivisions (a) to (d).

    (h) Any lesser included offense of a violation described in subdivisions (a) to (g) if the individual is charged with a violation described in subdivisions (a) to (g).

    (i) Any other violation arising out of the same transaction as a violation described in subdivisions (a) to (g) if the individual is charged with a violation described in subdivisions (a) to (g).

    

    

History: Add. 1988, Act 67, Eff. Oct. 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 195, Eff. Oct. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 255, Eff. Jan. 1, 1997 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 520, Imd. Eff. Jan. 12, 1999 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 106, Eff. Oct. 1, 2021

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 3 of Act 67 of 1988 provides: “This amendatory act shall take effect June 1, 1988.” This section was amended by Act 173 of 1988 to read as follows: “This amendatory act shall take effect October 1, 1988.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp, 496 Mich. 440 (Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp, 496 Mich. 440 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 3× “Under what is termed the “automatic waiver process,” however, if the prosecution charges a juvenile with a specified juvenile violation (which includes first-degree murder), MCL 764.1f authorizes the filing of a complaint and warrant, and the circuit court itself, rather than…”
People v. Woolfolk, 848 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “2(a)(l), MCL 764.1f, and MCL 600.606. In a note by the Reporter, it was indicated that subchapter 6.”
People v. Conat, 605 N.W.2d 49 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See MCL 764.1f(2); MSA 28.860(6)(2). The circuit court is given jurisdiction over juveniles at least fourteen years of age who commit any of the “specified juvenile violations,” so that it may hear the automatic waiver cases where the prosecutor charges the juvenile as an adult.”
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). · cites it 162× “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
People v. Veling, 504 N.W.2d 456 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “MCL 764.1f; MSA 28.860(6). In essence, then, the 1988 changes divested the probate court of its exclusive jurisdiction over juveniles and vested in the circuit courts personal jurisdiction over those juveniles charged with enumerated life offenses.”
People v. Dilling, 564 N.W.2d 56 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “§ 764.1f; M.S.A. § 28.860(6), the prosecution did not move to waive jurisdiction in the probate court within fourteen days as required by MCR 5.”
People v. Valentin, 577 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1998). “§ 764.1f; M.S.A. § 28.860(6), M.C.L. § 725.”
Foster v. Withrow, 159 F. Supp. 2d 629 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “§ 764.1f(1). Petitioner and his co-defendants were tried for this crime in September of 1994.”
People v. Thenghkam, 610 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 764.1f(l); MSA 28.860(6)(1). Hence, this is known as the “automatic waiver” statute.”
People v. Good, 463 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “606 and MCL 764.1f; MSA 28.860(6). See People v Brooks, 184 Mich App 793 ; 459 NW2d 313 (1990).”
People v. Haynes, 502 N.W.2d 758 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “The Detroit Recorder's Court acquired jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to the automatic waiver provisions of MCL 764.1f; MSA 28.860(6) and MCL 600.606; MSA 27A.”
People v. Brooks, 459 N.W.2d 313 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “606 and MCL 764.1f; MSA 28.860(6) applied to this case and made compliance with § 27 unnecessary.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(1) — 6 cases
Foster v. Withrow, 159 F. Supp. 2d 629 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “§ 764.1f(1). Petitioner and his co-defendants were tried for this crime in September of 1994.”
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
20250210_C367100_37_367100.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
People of Michigan v. Mark Andrew Sekelsky (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2) — 2 cases
People v. Conat, 605 N.W.2d 49 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “See MCL 764.1f(2); MSA 28.860(6)(2). The circuit court is given jurisdiction over juveniles at least fourteen years of age who commit any of the “specified juvenile violations,” so that it may hear the automatic waiver cases where the prosecutor charges the juvenile as an adult.”
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2)(a) — 3 cases
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
D People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
20250210_C367100_37_367100.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2)(b) — 3 cases
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
D People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2)(b)(i) — 2 cases
D People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2)(b)(iii) — 4 cases
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
D People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
D People of Michigan v. Christopher Paul Schurr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2)(b)(iv) — 1 case
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2)(d) — 1 case
D People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2)(e) — 1 case
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(2)(f) — 2 cases
D People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
165544_66_01.Pdf (Mich. 2024). “Rather than filing a juvenile petition in the family division of the Livingston Circuit Court, the prosecution filed a complaint and warrant under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, to try defendant as an adult in the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f(l) — 3 cases
People v. Woolfolk, 848 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “2(a)(l), MCL 764.1f, and MCL 600.606. In a note by the Reporter, it was indicated that subchapter 6.”
People v. Conat, 605 N.W.2d 49 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “See MCL 764.1f(2); MSA 28.860(6)(2). The circuit court is given jurisdiction over juveniles at least fourteen years of age who commit any of the “specified juvenile violations,” so that it may hear the automatic waiver cases where the prosecutor charges the juvenile as an adult.”
People v. Thenghkam, 610 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 764.1f(l); MSA 28.860(6)(1). Hence, this is known as the “automatic waiver” statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.