Opinion
359494
03-17-2022
People of Michigan v. Cameron Campbell
LC No. 87-010252-01-FC
Kirsten Frank Kelly Presiding Judge, Michael J. Riordan, Thomas C. Cameron, Judges
ORDER
Kirsten Frank Kelly, Presiding Judge
The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the delayed application for leave to appeal, the trial court's June 28, 2021 order is VACATED, and the matter REMANDED for reconsideration of defendant's motion for relief from judgment. The trial court erred by characterizing defendant's prior motion for sentence reduction as a motion for relief from judgment, and then treating defendant's motion for relief from judgment as a successive motion subject to the procedural bar of MCR 6.502(G). People v Gibson, 503 Mich. 1034 (2019), simply stands for the premise that MCR 2.612(C) does not apply in criminal matters, and that motions for relief from judgment in criminal matters should be decided solely under subchapter 6.500 of the Court Rules. In a number of other orders, the Supreme Court has made clear that trial courts should not recharacterize pro se motions seeking other forms of relief as motions for relief from judgment. See, e.g., People v Ford, 503 Mich. 856 (2018); People v Young, 505 Mich. 994 (2020); People v Giuchici, 503 Mich. 884 (2018). And, effective May 1, 2021, the Court Rules have been amended to clarify that, if a trial court believes that a pro se motion should be characterized as a motion for relief from judgment, it must give the defendant notice and an opportunity to withdraw or amend the motion. MCR 6.502(D). It was error to characterize defendant's prior motion for sentence reduction as a motion for relief from judgment. The trial court thus erred in deciding the motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.502(G). On remand, the trial court is directed to decide the motion under MCR 6.508(D).
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.