Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Chief Justice: Justices:
Opinion Marilyn Kelly Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
Diane M. Hathaway
FILED MARCH 18, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 136751
KOBEAY QURAN SWAFFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
MARKMAN, J.
We granted leave to appeal in this case to consider whether the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers (IAD), MCL 780.601, requires that a detainer be lodged
at the institution where the defendant is incarcerated, and, if so, whether there was
sufficient evidence in this case that the detainer was properly lodged. The trial
court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice as a result
of the prosecutor’s failure to bring defendant to trial within 180 days of receiving
defendant’s request for a final disposition, in violation of Article III(a) of the IAD.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the IAD is not applicable because the
prosecutor lodged the detainer against the defendant with the United States
1
Marshals rather than the federal prison in which defendant was incarcerated.
However, there is no language in the IAD that indicates that it is only applicable
when the detainer was originally lodged with the institution in which the defendant
is incarcerated, and in this case it is undisputed that the institution in which
defendant was incarcerated received the detainer. The clear language of the IAD
states that if a “detainer has been lodged against the prisoner,” and the prosecutor
fails to bring a defendant to trial within 180 days of receiving the defendant’s
request for a final disposition made while the defendant is serving a term of
imprisonment, the court “shall enter an order dismissing the [complaint] with
prejudice,” MCL 780.601 (emphasis added). That is precisely what happened in
this case. Therefore, we have no choice but to reverse the Court of Appeals and
reinstate the trial court’s order dismissing the charges with prejudice. However
harsh and inflexible a remedy for failure to comply with the IAD this may be
adjudged, it is plainly what our Legislature requires.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant was charged in Michigan with first-degree murder, assault with
intent to commit murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony. He was subsequently arrested on an unrelated federal bank robbery charge
in Tennessee. On June 1, 2004, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office
(hereinafter referred to as “the prosecutor”) sent a written detainer against
defendant to the U.S. Marshals in Tennessee. Defendant pleaded guilty to the
federal charges and was sentenced to federal prison on November 19, 2004. On
2
March 2, 2005, the federal prison authorities where defendant was imprisoned
(hereinafter referred to as “the Bureau of Prisons”) verified the detainer that was
lodged against defendant with the prosecutor.1 The Bureau of Prisons provided
the prosecutor and the court clerk with notice of defendant’s request for
disposition of the Michigan charges.2 This notice was received by the prosecutor
and the court clerk on March 7, 2005.3 On June 15, 2005, the prosecutor signed an
1
In a correspondence with defendant, a prison official stated, “I verified the
request to lodge a detainer . . . .” Stamped on a copy of the letter that
accompanied the detainer is a notation dated March 2, 2005, indicating that the
detainer was verified with a paralegal in the Wayne County Prosecutor’s
extradition unit.
2
This notice states:
The above named defendant is requesting disposition on the
outstanding charges you have filed against him as a detainer . . . .
An inmate requesting disposition of detainers in accordance with
Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act must be
brought to trial within 180 days of your receipt of this request.
At the same time, the Bureau of Prisons also submitted a document to the
prosecutor that provides, “A detainer has been filed against this subject in your
favor for: 1st Degree Murder, we will again notify you approximately 60 days
prior to actual release.” On June 4, 2005, the Bureau of Prisons sent a letter to the
prosecutor that provides:
The above named inmate has requested disposition on
outstanding charges which were filed against him as a detainer . . . .
As you know, once an inmate requests disposition under the IAD
they must be brought to trial within 180 days of your receipt of the
request. Ninety of the allotted 180 days elapsed effective June 25,
2005.
3
Fex v Michigan, 507 US 43, 52; 113 S Ct 1085; 122 L Ed 2d 406 (1993),
provides that the IAD’s 180-day time limit begins running when the prosecutor
receives the defendant’s request for trial.
3
“Agreement on Detainers” that states, “I propose to bring this person to trial on the
indictment, information or complaint named in the offer within the time specified
in Article III(a) of the Agreement on Detainers.”4 However, defendant was not
arraigned in Michigan until October 6, 2005, which everybody agrees was more
than 180 days after the prosecutor received defendant’s request for a final
disposition.
Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the ground that the
prosecutor had failed to bring him to trial within 180 days of receiving defendant’s
request for a final disposition in violation of Article III(a) of the IAD, MCL
780.601. The trial court granted this motion and dismissed the charges with
4
At the top of this form, it states, “This form should only be used when an
offer of temporary custody has been received as the result of a prisoner’s request
for disposition of a detainer.” This form also indicates that it was “[i]n response to
[the Bureau of Prisons’] letter of March 2, 2005.” On September 16, 2005, when
the prosecutor failed to bring defendant to trial within 180 days, the Bureau of
Prisons sent the prosecutor a letter stating:
The above named inmate requested disposition of the
outstanding charges that you have filed against him as a detainer on
03-02-2005. Under Article III of the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers, an inmate must be brought to trial within 180 days after
he requests disposition and the forms are received by the appropriate
officials. Our records indicate the forms required under the
provisions of the IAD were received and signed for by your office
on 03-07-2005. . . . Since 180 days have elapsed since you received
this request for disposition, we have advised, by copy of this letter to
the inmate, that he may petition the appropriate court for dismissal
of the outstanding charges.
Finally, the Bureau of Prisons’ “Release Authorization” indicates a “Release
Date” of “10-05-05”; under the word “Method” appear the initials “IAD”; and
after “Detainer,” the “Yes” box is checked.
4
prejudice. The prosecutor appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding
that the IAD does not apply because defendant was not serving a term of
imprisonment when the detainer was lodged against him. People v Swafford,
unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 27, 2007
(Docket No. 268499) (Swafford I).
Defendant filed a timely application for leave to appeal in this Court. We
vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to that court for
reconsideration in light of the documentation that defendant had attached to his
application for leave to appeal in this Court. People v Swafford, 480 Mich 881
(2007).5
5
In a concurring statement, Justice Corrigan raised specific questions for
the Court of Appeals to address. Specifically, she asked:
(1) Was the panel correct that People v Monasterski, 105
Mich App 645 (1981), and People v Wilden (On Rehearing), 197
Mich App 533 (1992), hold that “a detainer filed against a jail
inmate before he begins serving a prison sentence is insufficient to
implicate the IAD,” and, if so, (2) are the holdings in Monasterski
and Wilden consistent with the language of article III of the IAD?
After the Court of Appeals rendered its first decision, but before this Court vacated
that decision, defendant was brought to trial, convicted as charged, and sentenced
to life in prison. Defendant should not have been brought to trial at that time. The
Court of Appeals decision reversing the trial court’s dismissal of charges and
remanding the case for trial had not taken effect, because defendant had filed a
timely appeal to this Court. MCR 7.215(F)(1)(a). Moreover, during the pendency
of a timely appeal to this Court, a Court of Appeals decision remanding to a lower
court for further proceedings is automatically stayed, unless the Court of Appeals
or this Court orders otherwise. MCR 7.302(C)(5). Neither this Court nor the
Court of Appeals ordered further proceedings to begin notwithstanding
5
On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a split decision, again reversed the
trial court’s dismissal of the charges, holding that the IAD did not apply because
the prosecutor had not delivered the detainer to the institution in which defendant
was serving his sentence, i.e., the Bureau of Prisons. People v Swafford (On
Remand), unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March
18, 2008 (Docket No. 268499) (Swafford II). However, the dissenting judge
concluded that
the correspondence sent by the prosecutor’s office to the United
States Marshall on June 1, 2004 . . . became a valid detainer for
purposes of the IAD no later than March 2, 2005, when it
accompanied defendant to federal prison, was verified, and the
prosecutor was notified that defendant was requesting disposition on
the outstanding charges filed against him. [Id. at 1 (Zahra, J.,
dissenting).]
Defendant again filed an application for leave to appeal in this Court, and this
time, we granted defendant’s application for leave to appeal. People v Swafford,
482 Mich 1015 (2008).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This case involves the interpretation of the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers Act, MCL 780.601. Questions of statutory interpretation are questions
of law that this Court reviews de novo. People v Osantowski, 481 Mich 103, 107;
748 NW2d 799 (2008).
defendant’s timely appeal. Accordingly, the trial court did not have proper
jurisdiction to bring defendant to trial or convict defendant.
6
III. ANALYSIS
“Forty-eight States, [including Michigan,] the Federal Government, and the
District of Columbia . . . have entered into the Interstate Agreement on Detainers .
. . .” Alabama v Bozeman, 533 US 146, 148; 121 S Ct 2079; 150 L Ed 2d 188
(2001). The IAD “creates uniform procedures for lodging and executing a
detainer, i.e., a legal order that requires a State in which an individual is currently
imprisoned to hold that individual when he has finished serving his sentence so
that he may be tried by a different State for a different crime.” Id.6 Article I of the
IAD indicates that its purpose is to “encourage the expeditious and orderly
disposition” of “charges outstanding against . . . prisoner[s].” MCL 780.601.
Article III(a) of the IAD provides, in pertinent part:
Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment
in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever
during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending
in any other party state any untried indictment, information or
complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against
the prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty
days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting
officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officers’
jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his
request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment,
information or complaint . . . . [Id.]
Article V(c) of the IAD states, in relevant part:
[I]n the event that an action on the indictment, information or
complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged is not
6
Article II(a) of the IAD defines “state” to include “the United States of
America.” MCL 780.601.
7
brought to trial within the period provided in Article III . . . , the
appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment,
information or complaint has been pending shall enter an order
dismissing the same with prejudice, and any detainer based thereon
shall cease to be of any force or effect. [Id.]
In this case, the Wayne County Prosecutor lodged a detainer against
defendant, and while defendant was serving a term of imprisonment at a federal
institution, defendant made a written request with the prosecutor for a final
disposition of the pending Michigan charges. Thereafter, the prosecutor failed to
bring defendant to trial within 180 days as is required by Article III(a) of the IAD.
Article V(c) of the IAD, MCL 780.601, states that if a trial is not brought within
the period provided in Article III(a), “the . . . court . . . shall enter an order
dismissing the [complaint] with prejudice . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the
trial court in this case properly dismissed the charges with prejudice.
In its first opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the basis
that the IAD was not applicable because defendant was not serving a term of
imprisonment when the prosecutor lodged the detainer against him. However, the
IAD does not require that the detainer be lodged while the defendant is serving a
term of imprisonment. Instead, Article III(a) requires that “during the continuance
of the term of imprisonment,” a charge must be “pending . . . on the basis of which
a detainer has been lodged.” (Emphasis added.) The Legislature’s use of the
passive voice makes when the detainer was lodged irrelevant as long as it was
lodged before the defendant requested a final disposition. Furthermore, “a
detainer remains lodged against a prisoner without any action being taken on it.”
8
People v McLemore, 411 Mich 691, 692 n 2; 311 NW2d 720 (1981) (citation and
quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). See also United States v Mauro, 436
US 340, 360; 98 S Ct 1834; 56 L Ed 2d 329 (1978). Therefore, the IAD applies as
long as a “detainer has been lodged against the [defendant],” and the defendant,
while serving a term of imprisonment in one party state, has charges pending
against him in another party state, and causes a written request for a final
disposition to be delivered to the prosecutor and the court. Upon receiving that
request, the prosecutor must bring the defendant to trial within 180 days. That is,
although the defendant must be serving a term of imprisonment when the out-of-
state charges are pending and when he files a request for a final disposition, the
defendant does not have to be serving a term of imprisonment when the detainer is
first lodged. Because a detainer had been lodged against defendant, and because
he was serving a term of imprisonment when he requested a final disposition on
the pending out-of-state charges, the prosecutor was required to bring defendant to
trial within 180 days of receiving defendant’s request for trial.
As discussed earlier, this Court vacated that Court of Appeals judgment and
remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of defendant’s
documentation. On remand, the Court of Appeals again reversed the trial court’s
dismissal of the charges. However, this time it did so on a different rationale. The
Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the two cases that it had previously
relied upon-- People v Monasterski, 105 Mich App 645; 307 NW2d 394 (1981),
and People v Wilden (On Rehearing), 197 Mich App 533; 496 NW2d 801 (1992)--
9
are readily distinguishable from the instant case.7 It further recognized that if the
prosecutor in this case had sent the detainer to the Bureau of Prisons, “the fact that
the prosecutor lodged the detainer before defendant was imprisoned would be
irrelevant” and “we would be compelled to find that the provisions of the IAD
7
In Monasterski, the defendants argued that the IAD had been violated
because their trial was not commenced within 120 days of their arrival in
Michigan, as required by Article IV(c) of the IAD. However, the Court of
Appeals held that because the defendants never began serving terms of
imprisonment in Indiana (they were simply held in a county jail in Indiana
pending extradition), the IAD was not even applicable. Monasterski, 105 Mich
App at 653. In Wilden, the defendant argued that his return to a federal
correctional facility on September 21, 1990, before trial, violated the IAD because
Article IV(e) of the IAD provides that
[i]f trial is not had on any . . . complaint . . . prior to the prisoner’s
being returned to the original place of imprisonment . . . such . . .
complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court
shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice. [MCL
780.601.]
However, the Court of Appeals held that because the defendant had not “entered
upon a term of imprisonment” as of September 21, 1990, the IAD was not even
applicable. Wilden, 197 Mich App at 539. Moreover, the Court of Appeals in
Wilden recognized that the prosecutor had lodged detainers against the defendant.
Id. at 538. This recognition undercuts the prosecutor’s argument in the instant
case that communications sent before a prisoner begins a term of imprisonment are
not detainers.
Unlike Monasterski and Wilden, the instant case involves Article III(a) of
the IAD, which provides that when a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment
in one state and another state has lodged a detainer against the defendant, the latter
state has 180 days to bring the defendant to trial after it receives the defendant’s
written request for a final disposition of the outstanding charges. And, unlike the
defendants in Monasterski and Wilden, the defendant in the instant case had begun
to serve a term of imprisonment in the federal prison on the critical date, i.e., when
defendant requested a final disposition of the outstanding charges.
10
were violated and that the convictions against defendant must be vacated.”
Swafford II, supra at 5.
However, the Court of Appeals concluded that because the prosecutor never
sent a detainer directly to the Bureau of Prisons, where defendant was serving his
sentence, no valid detainer under the IAD was ever filed. It explained that,
although the IAD does not define the term “detainer,” several cases have defined
the term “detainer” as a “‘notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner
is serving a sentence . . . .’” McLemore, 411 Mich at 692 n 2, quoting Mauro, 436
US at 359 (quotation marks omitted). The Court of Appeals held that because the
prosecutor sent the detainer to the U.S. Marshals rather than the Bureau of Prisons,
the detainer was not valid, and, thus, the IAD did not apply.
The dissenting judge, on the other hand, recognized that,
[a]lthough the June 1, 2004, correspondence was filed with the U.S.
Marshal before defendant was imprisoned, it is without dispute that
the correspondence followed defendant to federal prison, where a
federal prison official verified “the request to lodge a detainer,” the
prosecutor’s office caused the clerk of the court to certify the
warrant and complaint, and the federal prison official subsequently
sent the prosecutor a letter stating that “[a] detainer has been filed
against this subject in your favor.” [Swafford II, supra at 1 (Zahra,
J., dissenting) (citation omitted).]
The dissenting judge emphasized that the “federal institution in which defendant
was imprisoned regarded the detainer as lodged once it was verified, as evidenced
by the sending of the detainer letter” and “the prosecutor’s conduct supports the
conclusion that [she] also viewed the detainer as being properly lodged,” because
“the prosecutor ultimately filed all the documents that would be consistent with
11
the understanding that an IAD detainer had been lodged with the federal prison.”
Id. at 1-2. Accordingly, the dissent concluded that the detainer had been properly
lodged with the Bureau of Prisons and that the IAD was violated when defendant
was not brought to trial within 180 days.
We agree with the dissenting judge. Contrary to the conclusion of the
Court of Appeals majority, there is no requirement in the IAD that the prosecutor
initially file the detainer with the institution in which the prisoner is serving his
sentence. Article III(a) simply states that it is applicable where “a detainer has
been lodged against the prisoner.” MCL 780.601. There is no language in the
IAD that requires the prosecutor to initially lodge the detainer with any specific
institution. Although caselaw generally describes a detainer as a “‘notification
filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence,’” McLemore,
411 Mich at 692 n 2, quoting Mauro, 436 US at 359, these descriptions are merely
meant to provide guidance on the meaning of “detainer” in the absence of a
statutory definition. These cases do not support the proposition that a detainer that
the prosecutor initially filed with another institution, i.e., the U.S. Marshals, but
which nevertheless reaches the institution in which the prisoner is serving his
sentence, is not a valid detainer for purposes of the IAD.8 Further, as discussed
8
The question at issue in both McLemore and Mauro was whether a writ of
habeas corpus constitutes a detainer for purposes of the IAD. Further, McLemore,
on which the prosecutor relies because it states that a detainer is a “‘notification
filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving sentence,’” McLemore, 411
Mich at 692 n 2, quoting Mauro, 436 US at 359, also states that “the provisions of
12
earlier, nothing in the actual language of the IAD requires the prosecutor to
initially file the detainer with the institution in which the defendant is serving his
sentence. Instead, Article III(a) simply requires the prosecutor to bring the
defendant to trial within 180 days when “a detainer has been lodged against the
prisoner” and, while serving a term of imprisonment, the defendant causes to be
delivered to the prosecutor and the court a written request for a final disposition.
In this case, (1) “a detainer [had] been lodged against [defendant],” and (2) while
he was serving a term of imprisonment, defendant caused to be delivered to the
prosecutor and the court a written request for a final disposition. Therefore, the
IAD was breached when defendant was not brought to trial within 180 days.9
Finally, the facts of this case make it clear that both parties invoked the
IAD for purposes of bringing defendant to trial. The institution in which
defendant was serving his sentence received the prosecutor’s detainer, the
the [IAD] apply if a participating jurisdiction which has untried charges against a
prisoner lodges a detainer with the jurisdiction where the prisoner is incarcerated .
. . .” Id. at 694, citing Mauro (emphasis added). In the instant case, there is no
question that the prosecutor lodged a detainer with the jurisdiction in which
defendant was incarcerated when it lodged the detainer with the U.S. Marshals and
where defendant was incarcerated in a federal prison.
9
The Court of Appeals noted that “the parties provide only scant
information indicating how the Bureau of Prisons received notification that
defendant had outstanding criminal charges in Michigan.” Swafford II, supra at 8
(emphasis added). However, how the Bureau received notice is not particularly
relevant. All that is relevant for purposes of the IAD is that the Bureau received
notice and passed it on to defendant, who, while serving a term of imprisonment,
then filed a written request for a final disposition with the prosecutor and the
court.
13
institution confirmed the detainer with the prosecutor, the prosecutor expressly
agreed to bring defendant to trial within 180 days of receiving defendant’s request
for trial as is required by Article III(a), and the prosecutor obtained custody of
defendant through the IAD. In a correspondence with defendant, a federal prison
official stated, “I verified the request to lodge a detainer . . . .” Stamped on the
letter that accompanied the June 1, 2004, detainer is a notation dated March 2,
2005, indicating that a federal prison official verified the detainer against
defendant with the extradition unit of the Wayne County Prosecutor. The Bureau
of Prisons further provided the prosecutor and the court clerk with notice of
defendant’s request for a final disposition of the Michigan charges that stated:
The above named defendant is requesting disposition on the
outstanding charges you have filed against him as a detainer. . . . An
inmate requesting disposition of detainers in accordance with Article
III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act must be brought to
trial within 180 days of your receipt of this request.
It is undisputed that the prosecutor received this notice on March 7, 2005. The
Bureau of Prisons also submitted a document to the prosecutor that provides, “A
detainer has been filed against this subject in your favor for: 1st Degree Murder,
we will again notify you approximately 60 days prior to actual release.”
Subsequently, the Bureau of Prisons sent a letter to the prosecutor that stated:
The above named inmate has requested disposition on
outstanding charges which were filed against him as a detainer. . . .
As you know, once an inmate requests disposition under the IAD
they must be brought to trial within 180 days of your receipt of the
request. Ninety of the allotted 180 days elapsed effective June 25,
2005.
14
In response, the prosecutor signed an “Agreement on Detainers” that states, “I
propose to bring this person to trial on the indictment, information or complaint
named in the offer within the time specified in Article III(a) of the Agreement on
Detainers.” This agreement also states that “[t]his form should only be used when
an offer of temporary custody has been received as the result of a prisoner’s
request for disposition of a detainer” and that “[this form is] in response to [the
Bureau of Prisons’] letter of March 2, 2005.” When the prosecutor failed to bring
defendant to trial within 180 days, the Bureau of Prisons sent the prosecutor a
letter stating:
The above named inmate requested disposition of the
outstanding charges that you have filed against him as a detainer on
03-02-2005. Under Article III of the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers, an inmate must be brought to trial within 180 days after
he requests disposition and the forms are received by the appropriate
officials. Our records indicate the forms required under the
provisions of the IAD were received and signed for by your office
on 03-07-2005. . . . Since 180 days have elapsed since you received
this request for disposition, we have advised, by copy of this letter to
the inmate, that he may petition the appropriate court for dismissal
of the outstanding charges.
Finally, the Bureau of Prisons’ “Release Authorization” indicates a “Release
Date” of “10-05-05”; under the word “Method” appear the initials “IAD”; and
after “Detainer,” the “Yes” box is checked.
In this case, it is utterly clear that the prosecutor lodged a detainer against
defendant, that both the Bureau of Prisons and defendant were aware of this
detainer, that the prosecutor was aware that the Bureau of Prisons was in
possession of the detainer, and that defendant caused a written request for a final
15
disposition to be delivered to the prosecutor and the court while defendant was
serving a term of imprisonment. Therefore, the IAD is clearly applicable, and
Article III(a) was indisputably violated when defendant was not brought to trial
within the proper time frame. Because Article V(c) expressly states that if the
defendant is not “brought to trial within the period provided in Article III . . . , the
appropriate court . . . shall enter an order dismissing the [charges] with prejudice,”
the trial court here properly dismissed the charges against defendant. “Any other
reading of [the IAD] would allow the Government to gain the advantages of
lodging a detainer against a prisoner without assuming the responsibilities that the
[IAD] intended to arise from such an action.” Mauro, 436 US at 364. The
prosecutor here failed to satisfy these responsibilities.
IV. CONCLUSION
The clear language of the IAD, MCL 780.601, states that if the prosecutor
fails to bring a defendant to trial within 180 days of receiving the defendant’s
request for a final disposition made while the defendant is serving a term of
imprisonment if a “detainer has been lodged against the prisoner,” the court “shall
enter an order dismissing the [complaint] with prejudice.” Because that is
precisely what happened in this case, we reverse the Court of Appeals and
reinstate the trial court’s order dismissing the charges with prejudice.10 However
10
Because we are reinstating the trial court’s order dismissing the charges
against defendant, defendant’s convictions and sentences arising from these
16
harsh and inflexible a remedy for failure to comply with the IAD this may be
adjudged, it is plainly what our Legislature requires.
Stephen J. Markman
Marilyn Kelly
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Diane M. Hathaway
charges must be set aside. Defendant’s motion to remand for an evidentiary
hearing is denied because it is now moot.
17