Background
In November 2015, Darnell Jones was arrested and charged with armed robbery, first-degree home invasion, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was arraigned in the district court, which appointed counsel and scheduled a probable cause conference for December 10, 2015, to be followed by a preliminary examination on December 17. Whether the probable cause conference was ever held remains disputed in the record. The preliminary examination was adjourned and ultimately held on December 23, after which Jones was bound over to Monroe Circuit Court. In May 2016, he pleaded nolo contendere to armed robbery and was sentenced to 270 to 600 months in prison.
Nearly a decade later, in August 2024, Jones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Chippewa Circuit Court under MCR 3.303. He argued that because no probable cause conference was held as required by MCL 766.4, the district court never properly acquired operational jurisdiction, rendering his subsequent conviction and sentence void. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the jurisdictional challenge lacked merit and that habeas corpus was being improperly used as a substitute for an appeal. Jones appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Writing for the panel, Presiding Judge Young held that the absence of a probable cause conference—even assuming one was never held—does not create a jurisdictional defect capable of voiding a subsequent criminal conviction. The court reasoned that MCR 6.108 expressly permits both parties to waive the probable cause conference, which means the requirement cannot be non-waivable and therefore cannot give rise to a jurisdictional defect. Michigan law holds that a defect of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; because the probable cause conference can be waived by agreement, its omission does not strip the court of jurisdiction.
The panel also relied on the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Robinson, ___ Mich ___ (2026), which held that the lack of a preliminary examination does not strip the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that a preliminary examination is a statutory right without constitutional mandate. The same logic applies with greater force to the probable cause conference, which precedes the preliminary examination in the pretrial chronology. The court confirmed the settled rule from People v. Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008): once a defendant is bound over to circuit court following a preliminary examination, the circuit court obtains jurisdiction over the defendant. Because Jones was bound over after the December 23 preliminary examination, the circuit court properly had jurisdiction when he pleaded and was sentenced.
Key Takeaways
- A failure to hold a probable cause conference under MCL 766.4 and MCR 6.108 does not deprive the district or circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction over a criminal case. The conference is waivable by both parties, and waivable rights cannot anchor non-waivable jurisdictional defects.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals applied the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in People v. Robinson—which held that omission of a preliminary examination does not strip circuit court jurisdiction—to confirm that lesser pretrial procedures are similarly non-jurisdictional.
- Once a defendant is bound over to circuit court following a preliminary examination, the circuit court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. Subsequent procedural irregularities in the pretrial sequence do not retroactively undo that jurisdictional predicate.
- Habeas corpus under MCR 3.303 and Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act is not a vehicle to relitigate the merits of a criminal conviction. Only “radical” jurisdictional defects can support a habeas petition for a convicted prisoner; technical pretrial omissions that can be waived do not qualify.
Why It Matters
Jones v. Genesee Circuit Court Judge is a published opinion that closes a potential post-conviction avenue. Defense counsel and prisoners’ rights advocates should note that Michigan courts now have a clear, uniform rule: neither the omission of a preliminary examination (Robinson) nor the omission of a probable cause conference (Jones) constitutes a “radical” jurisdictional defect sufficient to sustain a habeas corpus petition. Habeas corpus remains available only where the convicting court lacked the power to adjudicate the type of offense charged—not where pretrial procedural steps were skipped or waived.
For prosecutors and defense counsel handling active cases, the decision reinforces that MCR 6.108’s waiver provision is not merely a procedural convenience—it has jurisdictional significance. Because a probable cause conference can be dispensed with by agreement, an objection to its absence must be made during proceedings to preserve any appellate argument, and even then that argument is unlikely to succeed absent a showing of actual prejudice.