Ruling: Judge has discretion over Mental Health Court participants
A Macomb Circuit Court judge, not the county Prosecutor’s Office, has the ultimate authority to approve or reject whether a criminal defendant can participate in the Mental Health Court, according to the state Court of Appeals.
A three-judge panel of the court unanimously ruled in a criminal case last week that the Mental Health Court judge under state laws has the sole discretion to decide whether Lavelle Searcy should be admitted to the specialized court.
In the precedent-setting decision, the judges said that unlike drug court where the prosecutor can veto a defendant’s participation, mental health’s participants are ultimately determined by the judge. Circuit Judge Carl
Marlinga and Probate Judge Kathryn George preside over the mental health court. Marlinga rejected Searcy because the prosecutor’s office refused to evaluate him.
“I can’t make them evaluate him,” Marlinga said at the time. “I can’t make (the prosecutor) decide to – listen to a report, so, I mean, it is what it is. … I can’t make water un-wet at this point.”
But the court wrote: “The statutes (governing mental health courts) do not grant the prosecuting attorney’s office the unilateral authority to prevent defendant from participating in the mental health court. … Although the prosecutor has a role in the decision … no statutory provision grants that position veto power over the decision.”
The judges note the county’s 2013 “memorandum of understanding,” which established the court, complies with state law. “All cases will be subject to judicial discretion,” the memo says.
The appeals court remanded the case back to Macomb Circuit Court for the Marlinga to reconsider the decision.
Searcy, 58, in August 2017 pleaded no contest to three counts of burglary, possession of burglary tools, two counts of malicious destruction of destruction to police or fire department property, assault with a dangerous weapon and assaulting, resisting or obstructing a police office for three incidents in December 2016 in Sterling Heights.
Around that time, he also was rejected for Mental Health Court.
He was sentenced in January 2018 by circuit court Judge Michael Servitto to six to 15 years in prison.
After the sentencing, Searcy asked Marlinga to reconsider his entry into the specialized court but was denied.
Under the program, criminal defendants have a diagnoses of a “mental illness, developmental disability or serious emotional disturbance” can be admitted to the court, says the memorandum signed by then judge John Foster. Violent offenders are not allowed.
The participant can get a reduction in their sentence but must comply with conditions set forth by the mental health judge.
The Mental Health Court collaborates with county Community Mental Health, state probation, the county jail, the prosecutor and the sheriff in operating the court.
The court’s purpose is to “improve public safety and reduce recidivism by criminal defendants who suffer from severe mental illnesses by efficiently utilizing both court and community resources to connect these individuals with the best and most appropriate treatment options available while maintaining accountability for the crime committed,” the memo adds.
The court provides “intervention, programming, reinforcement, and monitoring of seriously mentally ill defendants to minimize the likelihood of future criminal court involvement,” it says.
The Mental Health Court currently has 20 participants, and 95 defendants have been admitted since it began over seven years ago, court officials said.
The appeals court panel was comprised of judges Christopher M. Murray, Kristen Frank Kelly and Cynthia Diane Stephens.