THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
770.9a Detention and denial of bail where defendant convicted of assaultive crime; “assaultive crime” defined; expediting appeal or application for leave to appeal.
Sec. 9a.
(1) A defendant convicted of an assaultive crime and awaiting sentence shall be detained and shall not be admitted to bail unless the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to pose a danger to other persons and that section 9b of this chapter does not apply.
(2) A defendant convicted of an assaultive crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment who has filed an appeal or an application for leave to appeal shall be detained and shall not be admitted to bail unless the trial court or the court to which the appeal is taken finds by clear and convincing evidence that section 9b of this chapter does not apply and that both of the following exist:
(a) The defendant is not likely to pose a danger to other persons.
(b) The appeal or application raises a substantial question of law or fact.
(3) As used in this section, "assaultive crime" means an offense against a person described in section 81c(3), 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90a, 90b(a) or (b), 91, 200 to 212a, 316, 317, 321, 349, 349a, 350, 397, 411h(2)(b) or (3), 411i, 520b, 520c, 520d, 520e, 520g, 529, 529a, 530, or 543a to 543z of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.81c, 750.82, 750.83, 750.84, 750.86, 750.87, 750.88, 750.89, 750.90a, 750.90b, 750.91, 750.200 to 750.212a, 750.316, 750.317, 750.321, 750.349, 750.349a, 750.350, 750.397, 750.411h, 750.411i, 750.520b, 750.520c, 750.520d, 750.520e, 750.520g, 750.529, 750.529a, 750.530, and 750.543a to 750.543z.
(4) The appeal or application for leave to appeal filed by a person denied bail under this section shall be expedited pursuant to rules adopted for that purpose by the supreme court.
History: Add. 1977, Act 34, Eff. Mar. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 195, Eff. Oct. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 208, Eff. Apr. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 483, Eff. Oct. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 32, Eff. June 30, 2004
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
Love v. Ficano, 19 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
Love v. Ficano, 19 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
· cites it 10× “§ 770.9a. This holding was made despite the fact that, by its terms, M.”
People v. Bylsma; People v. Overholt, 315 Mich. App. 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“MCL 770.9a. [MCL 333.26423(h).] 15 While we recognize that “[i]f a statute specifically defines a term, the statutory definition is controlling,” People v Lewis, 302 Mich App 338, 342 ; 839 NW2d 37 (2013), it is noteworthy that the singular framing of this definition is…”
Puertas v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 88 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Tarnow concluded that the petitioner was a pre-trial detainee rather than a post-conviction detainee, but noted that the parties agreed that Michigan Compiled Laws, Section 770.9a(2) governed the petitioner’s admission to bail or bond.”
People v. Sligh, 431 N.W.2d 395 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 3× “1106, and MCL 770.9a; MSA 28.1106(1). While none of these statutes was written with the present situation in mind, we hold that the statutes covering postconviction appeals are more apt.”
People v. Richardson, 776 N.W.2d 907 (Mich. 2010).
“ood, as represented in this case by drug-abusing neighbors who had recently moved in; and given that, at the time of this assault, defendant indisputably was approached on his own property by three of his neighbors, two of whom were under the influence of both alcohol and drugs…”
People of Michigan v. David Michael Barber (Mich. 2020).
· cites it 3× “2020-1 (issued March 15, 2020), “[d]uring the state of emergency, trial courts should be mindful that taking reasonable steps to protect the public is more important than strict adherence to normal operating procedures .”
People of Michigan v. David Michael Barber (Mich. 2020).
· cites it 3× “2020-1 (issued March 15, 2020), “[d]uring the state of emergency, trial courts should be mindful that taking reasonable steps to protect the public is more important than strict adherence to normal operating procedures .”
People v. Nevers, 615 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 9× “§ 770.9a, M.S.A. § 28.1106(1), which requires "clear and convincing evidence" (1) that defendant is not likely to pose a danger to others, and (2) that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact.”
People v. Richardson, 780 N.W.2d 295 (Mich. 2010).
“had recently moved in next door; and (g) given that, at the time of this assault, defendant indisputably was approached on his own property by three of his neighbors, two of whom were under the influence of alcohol and drugs and one of whom was wielding a baseball bat and who…”
People of Michigan v. Vernon Bernhardt Tackman Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“as: a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs -4- or a felony that is an…”
People of Michigan v. Vernon Bernhardt Tackman Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“as: a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs -4- or a felony that is an…”
People of Michigan v. Robert a Johnson (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“There are also requirements for a person serving as a primary caregiver; that person must be 21 years old and not have been convicted of a felony in the past 10 years and cannot have been “convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 770.9a(2) — 4 cases
Love v. Ficano, 19 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
“§ 770.9a. This holding was made despite the fact that, by its terms, M.”
Puertas v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 88 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
“Tarnow concluded that the petitioner was a pre-trial detainee rather than a post-conviction detainee, but noted that the parties agreed that Michigan Compiled Laws, Section 770.9a(2) governed the petitioner’s admission to bail or bond.”
People of Michigan v. David Michael Barber (Mich. 2020).
“2020-1 (issued March 15, 2020), “[d]uring the state of emergency, trial courts should be mindful that taking reasonable steps to protect the public is more important than strict adherence to normal operating procedures .”
People of Michigan v. David Michael Barber (Mich. 2020).
“2020-1 (issued March 15, 2020), “[d]uring the state of emergency, trial courts should be mindful that taking reasonable steps to protect the public is more important than strict adherence to normal operating procedures .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 770.9a(2)(a) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. David Michael Barber (Mich. 2020).
“2020-1 (issued March 15, 2020), “[d]uring the state of emergency, trial courts should be mindful that taking reasonable steps to protect the public is more important than strict adherence to normal operating procedures .”
People of Michigan v. David Michael Barber (Mich. 2020).
“2020-1 (issued March 15, 2020), “[d]uring the state of emergency, trial courts should be mindful that taking reasonable steps to protect the public is more important than strict adherence to normal operating procedures .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 770.9a(2)(b) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. David Michael Barber (Mich. 2020).
“2020-1 (issued March 15, 2020), “[d]uring the state of emergency, trial courts should be mindful that taking reasonable steps to protect the public is more important than strict adherence to normal operating procedures .”
People of Michigan v. David Michael Barber (Mich. 2020).
“2020-1 (issued March 15, 2020), “[d]uring the state of emergency, trial courts should be mindful that taking reasonable steps to protect the public is more important than strict adherence to normal operating procedures .”
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.