People v. Hogans

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Hogans

876 N.W.2d 520, 499 Mich. 877, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 486

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 29, 2016

Docket151402; Court of Appeals 324521

StatusPublished

This text of 876 N.W.2d 520 (People v. Hogans) 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 v. Hogans, 876 N.W.2d 520, 499 Mich. 877, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 486 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

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 November 7, 2014 delayed application for leave to appeal under the *878 standard applicable to direct appeals. Counsel was timely requested and appointed on direct review, but waited until only two months remained before expiration of the time for seeking leave to appeal, MCR 7.205(F), before moving to withdraw for lack of appealable issues, without following the proper procedure under Anders v California, 386 US 738; 87 S Ct 1396; 18 L Ed 2d 493 (1967). Counsel was permitted to withdraw with approximately one month left in the direct review period. New counsel did raise issues on the defendant’s behalf; however, new counsel was not appointed until after the deadline. Accordingly, whether from ineffective assistance of counsel or delays in the trial court, the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal. See Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United States, 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999). We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

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 November 7, 2014 delayed application for leave to appeal under the *878 standard applicable to direct appeals. Counsel was timely requested and appointed on direct review, but waited until only two months remained before expiration of the time for seeking leave to appeal, MCR 7.205(F), before moving to withdraw for lack of appealable issues, without following the proper procedure under Anders v California, 386 US 738; 87 S Ct 1396; 18 L Ed 2d 493 (1967). Counsel was permitted to withdraw with approximately one month left in the direct review period. New counsel did raise issues on the defendant’s behalf; however, new counsel was not appointed until after the deadline. Accordingly, whether from ineffective assistance of counsel or delays in the trial court, the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal. See Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United States, 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999). We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

876 N.W.2d 520, 499 Mich. 877, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hogans-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack