Opinion
367946
01-26-2024
People of Michigan v. Jeremy Matthew Hancock
LC No. 11-012446-01-FC
Thomas C. Cameron Presiding Judge Michael J. Kelly Colleen A. O'Brien Judges
ORDER
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Wayne Circuit Court's April 12, 2023 order and REMAND this matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with this order.
The trial court erred in two primary respects. To begin with, it erred insofar as it held that defendant's several jurisdictional arguments were procedurally barred under MCR 6.508(D)(2). Our review indicates that defendant's instant arguments were not raised on direct review or in a prior motion for relief from judgment; thus, they were not previously decided against him.
The trial court further erred by holding that defendant's jurisdictional arguments were procedurally barred-both under MCR 6.502(G) and on “good cause” grounds under MCR 6.508(D)(3)-without first addressing the threshold question of whether those arguments truly implicate the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. It may well be true that, for the reasons urged by the prosecution, defendant's several arguments will ultimately be found to constitute challenges to the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction over his person (i.e., personal jurisdiction), not its jurisdiction over this type of case in general (i.e., subject-matter jurisdiction). Nevertheless, by its own terms, MCR 6.508(D)(3) only applies as a procedural bar against certain “grounds for relief, other than jurisdictional defects[.]” (Emphasis added.) Thus, even if defendant's instant arguments are properly characterized as challenges regarding personal jurisdiction, rather than subject-matter jurisdiction, the trial court nevertheless erred by holding that such arguments were procedurally barred on “good cause” grounds under MCR 6.508(D)(3). See People v. Carpentier, 446 Mich. 19, 47; 521 N.W.2d 195 (1994) (RILEY, J., concurring) (“a jurisdictional defect or its equivalent has been found when the defendant raises the issue of improper personal jurisdiction”). And because defendant has, in fact, framed his arguments as challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction, the trial court should have addressed the merits of those challenges before simply holding that they were procedurally barred under MCR 6.502(G). See People v. Washington, 508 Mich. 107, 132; 972 N.W.2d 767 (2021) (holding that, “although MCR 6.502(G)(2) does not contain an exception for jurisdictional errors,” challenges concerning subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and “cannot be ignored for purposes of finality”).
On remand, the trial court should reconsider the disputed motion for relief from judgment on the merits in light of this order.
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.