One Court of Justice

In People v. Orlewicz, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case back to Wayne County Circuit Court, for consideration of defendant’s argument under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. __; 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), which held that mandatory life sentences for juvenile defendants violates the Eighth Amendment.  Mr. Orlewicz is serving a life sentence after a first-degree murder conviction arising out of events that took place when he was 17 years old.  The Court of Appeals’ opinion in Orlewicz is available here.

The Court rejected all other grounds in the application.  It had been holding Mr. Orlewicz’s application in abeyance pending its decision in People v. Vaughn, which was decided on July 9, 2012.  In  that case, the Court held that violation of the right to public voir dire in a trial is error, although it found that the error under those circumstances did not require a new trial.  For more on Vaughn, see the OCJ Blog post here.

The Court also denied two other applications for leave, and dismissed another application on stipulation of the parties.

In Makowski v. Governor, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that challenges to the governor’s decisions regarding whether to commute a prisoner’s sentence are nonjusticiable questions outside the scope of judicial review.  After Governor Jennifer Granholm purportedly commuted the plaintiff’s nonparolable life sentence to parolable life but before the sealed and signed commutation certificate was processed by the Department of Corrections, she revoked the commutation.  The plaintiff claimed that the revocation exceeded the governor’s constitutional authority and violated his due process rights.  The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over questions regarding a governor’s commutation powers.  The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read more »

In Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, the Michigan Supreme Court held that, where a mortgagee engages in a voluntary purchase agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), it must comply with MCL 600.3204 and record the assignment of the mortgage before foreclosing by advertisement.  The court further held that failure to do so renders the foreclosure sale voidable, as opposed to void ab initio.   

Read more »

In People v Minch, the Supreme Court found that, while a police department could appoint a bailee to possess a convicted felon’s firearms, it could not lawfully deliver the contraband firearms to an agent designated by the felon.  The defendant, who pled guilty to felony-firearm and possession of a short-barreled shotgun, wished to have the lawfully-owned weapons that were seized from his house delivered to his mother.  The Court of Appeals held that refusing to turn over the guns to his mother would violate his due process rights.  The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed.

Read more »

In People v Trakhtenberg, the Michigan Supreme Court considered whether collateral estoppel may be applied to prevent a court from reviewing a criminal defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim where, in a prior civil judgment, a court found that defense counsel’s performance did not rise to the level of malpractice.  Voting 4-2, with Justice Hathaway not participating, the Supreme Court held that under such circumstances, collateral estoppel may not be applied, as the defendant did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  The court then found that defense counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and the defendant was entitled to a new trial.

Read more »

In In Re Certified Question (Mattison v Social Security Commissioner), the Michigan Supreme Court considered whether the plaintiff’s twin children, who were conceived via artificial insemination after the death of their father, could inherit from their father under Michigan intestacy law.  The court concluded that children born after the death of a parent who were not in gestation at the time the parent died may not inherit from that parent under Michigan intestacy law. 

Read more »

In People v Siterlet, the Michigan Court of Appeals held the trial court erred by amending the defendant’s felony information after the twenty-one-day period permitted in MCL 769.13(1) and after trial.  But because the error was unpreserved and not plain, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

Prior to trial, the felony information charged the defendant with operating a vehicle while visibly impaired as a third habitual offender.  The defendant was convicted on that charge.  Following trial but before sentencing, the prosecution amended the information to charge the defendant as a fourth habitual offender.  It was clear that the defendant was a fourth habitual offender.  While it was error for the circuit court to permit the amendment, the Court determined it was not plain error because of the lack of clear legal precedent regarding the question.  Furthermore, given the circumstances, the conviction also did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and so the Court declined to exercise its discretion to reverse regardless of whether the error was plain.

In Edge v Edge, the Court of Appeals found that the circuit court erred when it granted the plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs incurred during the defendant’s appeal.  The circuit court granted the plaintiff’s motion on the basis that the defendant’s unsuccessful appeal was frivolous and characterized the award as “sanctions.”  However, because no court rule or statute authorized the circuit court to grant fees or costs for a frivolous appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court had abused its discretion and reversed the award.  The defendant should have sought her fees and costs from the Court of Appeals directly.

The Michigan Supreme Court granted reconsideration in Lech v. Huntmore Estates Condo. Ass’n.  On reconsideration, the Michigan Supreme Court modified its previous order so as to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the issues raised by the plaintiff in Court of Appeals Docket No. 297196.  The Michigan Supreme Court denied 11 other motions for reconsideration.

The Michigan Supreme Court directed the Cass County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal in People v. Morningstar, which remains pending.  The Court denied 137 other applications for leave to appeal.

In a unanimous opinion, in People v. Zajaczkowski, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the prosecution cannot establish the blood relationship element between the defendant and the victim when undisputed DNA test results indicate that there is no biological relationship between them.  The defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(ii), which requires that the prosecution prove the following elements:  (1) sexual penetration, (2) a victim who is at least 13 years old but less than 16 years old, and (3) a relationship by blood or affinity between the victim and the defendant.  The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of a conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in accordance with the defendant’s plea agreement and for resentencing.  The Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction, relying on statutes and cases involving the civil presumption concerning the legitimacy of a child, as well as standing, in contexts involving paternity, child custody, and intestate succession.  Interpreting the term “blood” relationship based on its ordinary meaning and the context in which it is used in the criminal statute, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that nothing in the language of the criminal statute indicates that a relationship by blood can be established through the civil presumption of legitimacy.