People of Michigan v. Russell Roberson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People of Michigan v. Russell Roberson

DecidedJune 2, 2016

Docket324668

StatusUnpublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Russell Roberson (People of Michigan v. Russell Roberson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals 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. Russell Roberson, (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 2, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 324668 Wayne Circuit Court RUSSELL ROBERSON, LC No. 14-005563-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and SAWYER and STEPHENS, JJ.

RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J. (concurring).

I concur in the result reached by the majority.

I write separately because I am highly concerned by the majority’s implied reliance on this Court’s own denial of defendant’s motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing pertaining to the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel as a basis for now declining to review the issue beyond the information in the record. I believe that this potentially places defendants in an unfair and unwinnable “Catch-22” situation. In effect, this Court can preclude a defendant from seeking supporting evidence and then penalize the defendant for failing to do so.

As it so happens, upon full review of the record and of defendant’s arguments, through counsel and his Standard 41 brief, I conclude that there is no reason why a remand would have been even potentially productive, so the situation is harmless. I note that exculpatory post‐trial statements offered by codefendants who declined to testify at trial are considered untrustworthy and unreliable in general, People v Terrell, 289 Mich App 553, 565-566; 797 NW2d 684 (2010), and I find that to be particularly true here. Much of what defendant complains of counsel failing to present would have either been more damaging to defendant or could not reasonably be said to have affected the outcome.

1 Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2004-6, Standard 4.

-1- Consequently, although I agree with the result reached by the majority, I do not agree that restricting our review to mistakes apparent on the record is proper on the basis of this Court’s prior denial of defendant’s motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause

-2-

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 2, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 324668 Wayne Circuit Court RUSSELL ROBERSON, LC No. 14-005563-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and SAWYER and STEPHENS, JJ.

RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J. (concurring).

I concur in the result reached by the majority.

I write separately because I am highly concerned by the majority’s implied reliance on this Court’s own denial of defendant’s motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing pertaining to the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel as a basis for now declining to review the issue beyond the information in the record. I believe that this potentially places defendants in an unfair and unwinnable “Catch-22” situation. In effect, this Court can preclude a defendant from seeking supporting evidence and then penalize the defendant for failing to do so.

As it so happens, upon full review of the record and of defendant’s arguments, through counsel and his Standard 41 brief, I conclude that there is no reason why a remand would have been even potentially productive, so the situation is harmless. I note that exculpatory post‐trial statements offered by codefendants who declined to testify at trial are considered untrustworthy and unreliable in general, People v Terrell, 289 Mich App 553, 565-566; 797 NW2d 684 (2010), and I find that to be particularly true here. Much of what defendant complains of counsel failing to present would have either been more damaging to defendant or could not reasonably be said to have affected the outcome.

1 Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2004-6, Standard 4.

-1- Consequently, although I agree with the result reached by the majority, I do not agree that restricting our review to mistakes apparent on the record is proper on the basis of this Court’s prior denial of defendant’s motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People of Michigan v. Russell Roberson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-russell-roberson-michctapp-2016.

Opinion

I concur in the result reached by the majority.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack