People v. Russell

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Russell

759 N.W.2d 23, 483 Mich. 851

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 2009

Docket137330

StatusPublished

This text of 759 N.W.2d 23 (People v. Russell) 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. Russell, 759 N.W.2d 23, 483 Mich. 851 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Summary Disposition January 9, 2009:

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of that part of the defendant’s application challenging the imposition of attorney fees in light of People v Trapp (On Remand), 280 Mich App 598 (2008). On remand, the Court of Appeals shall also consider whether any recoupment of the costs of court-appointed counsel is permissible since the record suggests that the defendant was represented by retained counsel throughout most of the trial court proceedings. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 284777.

Hathaway, J., did not participate.

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

Summary Disposition January 9, 2009:

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of that part of the defendant’s application challenging the imposition of attorney fees in light of People v Trapp (On Remand), 280 Mich App 598 (2008). On remand, the Court of Appeals shall also consider whether any recoupment of the costs of court-appointed counsel is permissible since the record suggests that the defendant was represented by retained counsel throughout most of the trial court proceedings. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 284777.

Hathaway, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

759 N.W.2d 23, 483 Mich. 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-russell-mich-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack