Chapter 17: Appointment of Counsel Under the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act (MIDCA)
This chapter discusses the requirements of the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act, governing the appointment of defense counsel, which applies to juveniles who are charged with felony offenses in traditional waiver, designated, and automatic waiver proceedings.
For discussion of additional requirements concerning the right to counsel in these proceedings, see Chapter 14 (traditional waiver proceedings), Chapter 15 (designated proceedings), and Chapter 16 (automatic waiver proceedings).
17.1Introduction1
The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act (MIDCA), MCL 780.981 et seq., creating the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC) within the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA)2 and establishing a system for the appointment of defense counsel for indigent defendants, applies to juveniles who are charged with felony offenses in traditional waiver,3 designated,4 and automatic waiver5 proceedings. MCL 780.983(a)(ii)(A)-(D).
Under the MIDCA, the MIDC is required to “develop[] and oversee[] the implementation, enforcement, and modification of minimum standards, rules, and procedures to ensure that indigent criminal defense services providing effective assistance of counsel are consistently delivered to all indigent adults[6] in this state consistent with the safeguards of the United States constitution, the state constitution of 1963, and [the MIDCA].” MCL 780.989(1)(a). Although the MIDC is within the executive branch (and not the judicial branch), the MIDCA does not violate Const 1963, art 3 § 2, Const 1963 art 6 § 4, or Const 1963 art 6 § 5 because “any sharing or overlapping of functions required by the [MIDCA] is sufficiently specific and limited that it does not encroach on the constitutional authority of the judiciary.” Oakland Co v State of Michigan, 325 Mich App 247, 262 (2018). The MIDCA “does not directly regulate trial courts or attorneys.” Id. Instead, it “regulates ‘indigent criminal defense system[s],’ statutorily defined as funding units, rather than trial courts themselves.” Id. at 262-263. In addition, it “repeatedly recognizes the Michigan Supreme Court’s constitutional authority to regulate practice and procedure and to exercise general superintending control of Michigan courts.” Id. at 263. Further, “the [MIDCA] contains no provision authorizing the MIDC to force the judiciary to comply with the minimum standards, nor does the [MIDCA] purport to control what happens in court.” Id. at 264. Accordingly, the MIDCA is not facially unconstitutional. Id. at 265.
Similarly, a challenge to the MIDC’s minimum standard requirements7 that they “violate the separation of powers doctrine and are otherwise not authorized by law . . . lack[ed] merit.” Oakland Co, 325 Mich App at 257, 266. Also, rules and procedures established by the MIDC do not violate the Administrative Procedures Act8 because they “are merely explanatory and do not contain compulsory provisions.” Id. at 272.
MCL 780.991(2)(a)-(f) set out requirements for MIDC standards, rules, and procedures concerning defense counsel, including that “[d]efense counsel’s workload [be] controlled to permit effective representation,” MCL 780.991(2)(b), and that “[t]he same defense counsel continuously represent[] and personally appear[] at every court appearance throughout the pendency of the case,” MCL 780.991(2)(d). Additionally, the MIDCA sets out requirements concerning advice of the right to counsel, MCL 780.991(1)(c), and eligibility for appointed counsel, MCL 780.991(3).
MCL 780.989(3) provides, in relevant part:
“In establishing and overseeing . . . minimum standards, rules, and procedures . . . , the MIDC shall emphasize the importance of indigent criminal defense services provided to juveniles under the age of 17 who are tried in the same manner as adults or who may be sentenced in the same manner as adults[.]”
1. For additional discussion of the MIDCA, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Criminal Proceedings Benchbook, Vol. 1, Chapter 4.
2. See MCL 780.985(1); MCL 780.983(c).
3. In traditional waiver proceedings, the requirements of the MIDCA are applicable both “[d]uring consideration of a petition filed under . . . MCL 712A.4[] to waive jurisdiction . . . and upon granting a waiver of jurisdiction.” MCL 780.983(a)(ii)(A). See Chapter 14 for discussion of traditional waiver.
4. The MIDCA applies to all stages of a prosecutor-designated case. See MCL 780.983(a)(ii)(B). However, the MIDCA applies to court-designated cases only “[d]uring consideration of a request by a prosecuting attorney . . . that the court designate the case as a case in which the juvenile is to be tried in the same manner as an adult.” MCL 780.983(a)(ii)(C). It is unclear whether this distinction was intentional or an oversight. See Chapter 15 for discussion of designated cases.
5. The MIDCA applies to “[a]n individual less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of a felony” if “[t]he prosecuting attorney authorizes the filing of a complaint and warrant for a specified juvenile violation under . . . MCL 764.1f.” MCL 780.983(a)(ii)(D). See Chapter 16 for discussion of automatic waiver.
6. As used in the MIDCA, “‘[a]dult’” includes “[a]n individual less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of a felony” who is the subject of a traditional waiver, designated, or automatic waiver proceeding. MCL 780.983(a)(ii). Note that the MIDCA does not appear to apply to court-designated cases after designation. See MCL 780.983(a)(ii)(C). It is unclear whether this was intentional or an oversight.
8.MCL 24.201 et seq.