Facing a misdemeanor? How serious is it: potential penalties from misdemeanor charges

The thing is that a lot of commercials for criminal defense use a "scare tactic" to try and influence you. You know, like the "you just blew $10,000" billboard (which isn't even done by a defense attorney!) But it you are pulled over for driving under the influence (or OWI, etc.) it can be a misdemeanor.

So what does the term "misdemeanor" mean? Why is that different from a felony? Will a felony always be treated as a federal crime?Are misdemeanors not serious at all? Can a felony have a lower penalty than a misdemeanor?

The answer is: it depends.

A misdemeanor can have a variety of penalties attached to it. Same thing for a felony.

Misdemeanors are separated into types. Some types are for violations of a local ordinance. Others fall in the 93-day category, which means the judge can't sentence beyond 93 days in jail, and/or a $500 fine (plus court costs). Other misdemeanors are less than one year. The more serious misdemeanors (called high Court misdemeanors) can have up to 2 years as a possibility. As a result, these are transferred to Circuit Court, as the judges in District court can't sentence that much time (hence the name "high Court"). 

Examples of 93 day misdemeanors are assault and battery, driving under the influence (first offense), and retail fraud. Examples of one-year misdemeanors include larceny (property valued at $200 or more but less than $1,000), retail fraud in the second degree (shoplifting), and intentional discharge of a firearm (but without intent to injure). High court misdemeanors are punishable by up to two years in prison or a fine up to $2,000, or both. High court misdemeanors include indecent exposure and negligent homicide (by vehicle).

Can a misdemeanor have a higher penalty than a felony? Yes, but only in some circumstances. The thing is, the circuit court judge may have a higher sentencing ability (beyond a year), but that doesn't mean that the judge will use the maximum sentence every time. The district court judge, on the other hand, can still go up to one year. So for example, let's use a defendant who is charged with DUI second, which can have a year penalty. District Court judge can give that guy up to a year  in jail, and very well might. Same defendant a few years later would face a felony charge of DUI third, which can go much higher, from 1 to 5 years. But that higher judge might be sentencing less than the district court judge. Just because the higher judge can sentence higher doesn't mean he or she will. 

Novel ideas in law: don't believe the click-bait! Or: Proposed change to MI Animal law includes ban on oral sex, or does it?

Maybe you've seen this article on your social media. It's claim is that Michigan, through it's senate, will ban some types of sex, and penalize it up to 15 years.  (article from Freethought). It even is posted with an alluring bedroom photo.

If you were thinking to yourself "That can't be true, it seems so outdated," then you're probably right. The article is written mostly to get you to click on it (hence the term click-bait, the sad substitute for journalism that's ad-driven instead of fact driven.) 

The article isn't accurate. Michigan's senate was attempting to amend the laws currently on the books to make it illegal for someone who's already been convicted of animal abuse to be able to adopt an animal from a shelter or rescue.

Here's the original  law, which is at MCL 750.49 et seq. It was originally written in 1931, and has been amended time after time, as it contains all of Michigan's criminal laws and penalties. 

Here's the proposed changes to the act (full text). If you start reading from the top, you will see that the bill focuses on animal abuse.

However, the thing is the click-bait article only SAMPLES from the full text of the bills, and ignores the fact that the Senate was trying to amend law regarding animal abuse. This makes the click-bait quite misleading.

And the news ran an article on the proposed changes to the law, which didn't mention the "sex" portion of the bill at all. (Here's the article on Mlive). 

But there is some accuracy to it - since the law it's sampling from seems to say "these types of sex are illegal."  So it also leads one to ask the question: why not clean up the original language of the bill while the Senate was busy writing new parts of the law?

Your guess is as good as mine as to why they didn't do a little "housecleaning" on the bill. My thinking is that maybe the Senate didn't know it needed to.


But the rule that "don't believe everything you read" should be followed here.

PS: The Michigan Legislative website is a great resource for what's currently in the law in Michigan, and what's being proposed as changes to the law. I use it almost daily! Hints from your local law nerd.

Melted snow uncovers meth labs

Spring weather means Michigan residents might be more likely to come across debris associated with meth production, police say.

Since many products used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine might have sat snow-covered along roadways and within isolated areas all winter, now is the time they might be visible, according to Traverse Narcotics Team Commander Detective Lt. Daniel King.

Officials with the Traverse Narcotics Team are advising Michigan residents to be on the lookout for materials used to manufacture meth which may have recently become visible with the recent arrival of spring. 

These materials, including chemical components, and bottles with hoses attached, should be reported to local law enforcement, King said.

Article here (via mlive).