Opinion
SC 164482 COA 360219
01-04-2023
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAUL ANDRE BLANTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Calhoun CC: 1989-000893-FC
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden, Justices
ORDER
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 6, 2022 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the November 15, 2021 order of the Calhoun Circuit Court denying the defendant's motion for relief from judgment, and we REMAND this case to the circuit court for reconsideration of that motion. If the circuit court again denies the motion, the order shall "include a concise statement of the reasons for the denial," as required by MCR 6.504(B)(2). The motion to remand is GRANTED.
The circuit court initially denied the defendant's successive motion for relief from judgment in a June 3, 2020 order. In a December 23, 2020 order, the Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court's order and remanded for consideration on the merits, stating that the defendant was "entitled to have his motion decided on its merits and to be provided with a concise statement of the reasons supporting that decision." The circuit court issued an order on June 3, 2021 that denied the defendant's motion to correct judgment of sentence but did not address his successive motion for relief from judgment. On November 24, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued an order remanding the case to the circuit court "for entry of an order disposing of defendant's successive motion for relief from judgment in a manner consistent with the circuit court's June 1, 2021 bench ruling, and this Court's order entered on December 23, 2020." The circuit court had issued an order on November 15, 2021 that purported to deny the defendant's successive motion for relief from judgment. The order did not state any basis for the denial of the motion. The order did not "include a concise statement of the reasons for the denial," as required by MCR 6.504(B)(2). There is no indication in the lower court record that the circuit court issued a subsequent order addressing the motion for relief from judgment.
Bolden, J., did not participate.