Just three weeks after the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and remanded our Section 8 appeal to the Court of Appeals, today, we received notice that the Supreme Court granted another application for leave to appeal in an entirely different case.
Shyler learned that a Macomb County resident had been sentenced to five to fifteen years in prison over marijuana convictions and probation violations. Shyler immediately appealed the court’s sentence arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals denied our appeal, however, today, the Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeals consider whether our client’s sentence was reasonable.
Recently, the Supreme Court issued People v Lockridge, a decision that expands trial court discretion in criminal sentencing. If our appeal is successful, it will reinforce the notion that the punishment must fit the crime, and that five years in prison for marijuana is unreasonable.
A Shyler Engel, PLLC client was charged with Operating with the Presence of Marijuana. Despite having a physician’s certification prior to her arrest, the trial court judge denied Shyler any ability to argue that his client had a medical purpose for using marijuana. Because the judge denied our Section 8 motion without a hearing, our client would never able to show a jury that she was not impaired by the marijuana while she was driving — but merely tested positive for it. Shyler appealed this decision all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court. Today, we learned the the Supreme Court agreed with us enough to remand the case back to the Court of Appeals requiring them to review the merits of our appeal. This case may expand the scope of protections provided to medical patients beyond People v Koon.
A Shyler Engel, PLLC client had been terminated from her position as the company was downsizing. The client filed an unemployment claim only to find out that her former employer claimed that she had been terminated for insubordination. Our client claimed this was preposterous. We appealed the UIA determination excluding her from benefits and had the matter set before an administrative law judge. When the employer did not appear to defend its claim of insubordination, the judge ruled that the client was entitled to unemployment benefits. Shortly thereafter, the UIA, seemingly adamant to deny our client unemployment benefits, disqualified her again claiming that she refused work or was unavailable for transportation issues. Again, we appealed and had the matter back before a different administrative law judge. After placing her testimony on the record regarding her availability and willingness to work, the administrative law judge again reversed the UIA. Finally, we heard today that our client received a significant payment from all the weeks that she did not receive unemployment benefits.
A Shyler Engel, PLLC commercial landlord client had a prominent tenant with a host of lawyers who believed that they wouldn’t have to pay rent because the landlord allegedly had not maintained the commercial space the exact way that the tenant had wanted. Normally, when a landlord sues a tenant for non-payment of rent, an agreement to stay and pay or a period of time to leave voluntarily is reached, but in this case, when we sued the tenant to take back possession of the property for non-payment of rent, the tenant and his lawyers sought a trial. The tenant is entitled to a summary proceedings hearing by law, but at that hearing, we demonstrated that the Landlord was in its right for a number of reasons to regain possession of the property. The district court judge agreed and ordered possession of the property back to the landlord and a money judgment against the tenant. Again, normally that would be the end of the matter, but not in this case.
The tenant appealed to the circuit court and a number of other procedural steps were taken to delay the eviction, but diligently, we ensured that the tenant would have to post nearly a $20,000 appeal bond to ensure our client was protected after the tenant lost in circuit court. When it came time to oral argument, the circuit court judge read nearly verbatim from our brief supporting dismissal of the appeal and the tenant’s appeal was dismissed in favor of our client.
A Shyler Engel, PLLC client lost her driver’s license after a rolling retest violation back in March of 2014. She had hired a different attorney to conduct the initial appeal to the Driver’s License Appeal Division at the Secretary of State. She lost. Her license was revoked for the next year before she could even get her restricted license back, and would have to go through the entire process again. Fortunately, she hired me, and we set out to her license back. First, we sought an immediate stay of the revocation, meaning that the client would be able to continue to drive even though the Secretary of State revoked her license. Our petition for a stay was successful. Our client’s old attorney called this “magic.” Then we appealed to Circuit Court where we quickly cut a deal with the Attorney General’s office to have the matter remanded back to the Secretary of State for a rehearing — the same hearing she originally lost at with the other attorney. This time around the DLAD hearing lasted only 9 minutes and my client was granted her restricted license back on the spot.