People of Michigan v. Joshua Maurice Robinson

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided April 25, 2019·No. 156463·Published

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

April 25, 2019 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

156463 David F. Viviano, Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Brian K. Zahra Plaintiff-Appellee, Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement

v SC: 156463 Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices

COA: 338921 Wayne CC: 15-003518-FC

JOSHUA MAURICE ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of December 14, 2018, the defendant’s appellate counsel was directed to file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brief having been received, the application for leave to appeal the July 28, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the defendant’s June 22, 2017 application for leave to appeal under the standard applicable to direct appeals. Appellate counsel admits that she missed the deadline for filing a direct appeal. Accordingly, the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470, 477 (2000); Peguero v United States, 526 US 23, 28 (1999).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 25, 2019

a0418

Clerk

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

People of Michigan v. Joshua Maurice Robinson, (Mich. 2019).

People of Michigan v. Joshua Maurice Robinson (People of Michigan v. Joshua Maurice Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peguero v. United States
526 U.S. 23 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
528 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 2000)