People of Michigan v. Mekio Price

── People of Michigan v. Mekio Price ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED May 18, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:35 PM v No. 374150 Wayne Circuit Court MEKIO PRICE, LC No. 24-002431-01-FH Defendant-Appellee. Before: WALLACE, P.J., and GARRETT and ACKERMAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. The prosecution appeals as of right from the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of a three-count felony prosecution of Defendant Mekio Price for carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227(2); possessing a device designed or intended to be used to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm, MCL 750.224e; and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b(2). The trial court entered its dismissal on the day set for trial, but before the jury had been empaneled and sworn in, after the prosecution disclosed that the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) license of the key witness in the case, Officer Fragoso, was rendered inactive before the time of his observations and actions in investigating the case to support the charges. The trial court concluded that in such a circumstance “the officer had no authority to act as a police officer” where, pursuant to the MCOLES Act, MCL 28.601 et seq., the officer “shall not exercise the law enforcement authority described in the laws of this state under which the individual is employed if . . . (c) The individual’s license is rendered inactive.” MCL 28.609(14). We find that the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice violates the constitutional separation of powers and was an abuse of discretion. The dismissal interfered with the prosecution’s authority to bring and pursue criminal charges, where there was no abuse of discretion or evidentiary insufficiency by the magistrate in binding the case over for trial from the preliminary examination and there is no permissive statute or other law authorizing such a dismissal. We accordingly reverse and remand to allow the prosecution to reinstate the charges against defendant at its own discretion. -1-  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 30, 2023, Officer Fragoso was driving a patrol car with Officer McGregor and Officer Scott in Detroit, Michigan, when he observed defendant talking to someone on the sidewalk. Defendant looked in the officers’ direction before walking the opposite way towards a red sedan, while holding his right side. Officer Fragoso then saw defendant make a “throwing motion towards the front of the [red sedan].” He thereafter was able to hear the sound of a metallic object hitting the ground (because he was approximately five feet from the sedan with his window down). Officer Fragoso informed his partners of his observations, and they exited the vehicle to make contact with defendant. Under the sedan, Officer Fragoso found a handgun that had fresh scratches on the side it was lying on, equipped with a conversion device that makes semiautomatic handguns fully automatic. Defendant did not respond to Officer Fragoso’s question whether he had a concealed pistol license. Officer Fragoso’s partners arrested defendant, and he was charged with the three felony offenses indicated. Following a preliminary examination, in which Officer Fragoso was the sole t