PEOPLE OF MI V JAMALL KEVIN STAFFORD

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
PEOPLE OF MI V JAMALL KEVIN STAFFORD
Docket No. 377901
LC Nos. 24-000020-FH; 25-000900-FH; 25-000901-FH
Michael J. Kelly
Presiding Judge
Mark T. Boonstra
Daniel S. Korobkin
Judges
Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED and Docket No. 377901 remains
closed. “An appeal or proceeding in error taken or commenced before the right to take or commence the
same has accrued is premature and will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” Brown v Adler, 282 Mich
264, 266; 276 NW 442 (1937). Further, an order does not become reviewable on appeal until it has been
entered by the trial court. See id. at 265-266. Consequently, defendant’s motion to review bail—filed on
October 23, 2025—was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the motion was premature
before entry of the trial court’s January 13, 2026 order denying defendant’s bail motion. See id.
(considering whether jurisdiction existed “at the time the claim of appeal was filed” and dismissing a
claim of appeal filed before entry of a final order, despite the fact that a judgment entered six days after
the claim of appeal was filed).
In lieu of granting defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s
Office, upon entry of this order, to open a new Court of Appeals file based on defendant’s filings pertaining
to the January 13, 2026 bail order. The new file shall be docketed as a motion to review bail involving
the January 13, 2026 bail order, and the case shall be docketed as filed on January 20, 2026. Any answer
to be filed by the prosecutor in the new case should be filed within 7 days of the Clerk’s certification of
this order.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
Boonstra, J. would deny the motion for reconsideration. Because, as the majority notes, this Court lacks
jurisdiction, we have no authority to act other than to dismiss the motion to review bail (as the majority
agrees was proper) and therefore to deny the motion for reconsideration of our prior order. See Electronic
Data Sys Corp v Twp of Flint, 253 Mich App 538, 544; 656 NW2d 215 (2002) (“[H]aving
determined that is has no jurisdiction, a court should not proceed further except to dismiss the
action.”). See also Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 56; 490 NW2d 568 (1992) (“When a court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim, any action it takes, other than to dismiss
the action, is void.”). Nonetheless, g iven that defendant now has a written bail order, defendant would

-- 1 of 2 --

remain free to file a new Court of Appeals case to seek review of the January 13, 2026 bail order consistent
with the Court Rules. See MCR 6.106.
A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on
Date

-- 2 of 2 --