The court held that there was no due process violation and that the unpreserved error in the assignment of the case to a different judge at the second PE did not affect the outcome of the proceedings. Also, defendant failed to establish a plain error affecting his substantial rights related to his arrest and detainment after the dismissal without prejudice following the first PE. Further, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Defendant argued that he was deprived of due process because, following the dismissal of the charges at the first PE, the prosecution filed a second complaint charging the same offenses, the case was assigned to a different judge at the second PE, “and no new evidence was discovered.” However, he did not establish a due process violation. Additional evidence was presented at the second PE. G, who did not testify at the first PE, testified at the second PE that “he saw defendant shoot” the victim. The prosecution presented G at the second PE after the witnesses at the first PE “failed to testify in accordance with their earlier statements.” There was no indication that the prosecution was “seeking to harass defendant by refiling the charges and holding the second” PE. An error occurred under MCR 6.110(F) because the second PE was held before a different judge. However, there was no basis to conclude that the prosecution “had any control or influence on the assignment of the case to a different judge, and defendant did not request a transfer of the case when the judge at the second” PE noted that it should have been assigned to the original judge. The prosecution never argued for having the case remain before the second judge. There was no evidence that the prosecution was “engaged in judge-shopping. Rather, the charges were refiled” and the second PE was held because the witnesses at the first PE failed to testify as expected. “Finally, the error in assigning the case to a different judge did not affect the outcome.” Defendant did not contest that the testimony at the second PE “provided probable cause to bind him over.” Affirmed.Â
