People of Michigan v. Harold Lamont Walker

911 N.W.2d 807
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 1, 2018
Docket155198
StatusPublished

This text of 911 N.W.2d 807 (People of Michigan v. Harold Lamont Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People of Michigan v. Harold Lamont Walker, 911 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. 2018).

Opinion

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 25, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applications or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file their supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial based on either trial court error or ineffective assistance of counsel, where the defense witness that was not produced at trial also did not appear at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing; and (2) whether the witness's failure to appear at the hearing is attributable to the defense under the circumstances of this case. In addition to its supplemental brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). Each party may file a response brief within 14 days of being served with the other party's supplemental brief. Additionally, at that time, the appellee/cross-appellant shall electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

The motion for bond pending appeal is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Adams
425 N.W.2d 437 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
911 N.W.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-harold-lamont-walker-mich-2018.