Opinion
SC: 159215 COA: 339020
12-23-2019
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane Jeremy HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of July 29, 2019, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer Issue II of the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment addressing whether the defendant established that Detective Boczar’s testimony was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals to address the question whether the defendant has established that there is a reasonable probability that, but for defense counsel’s failure to object to Detective Boczar’s testimony, the outcome of this trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). While the Court of Appeals quoted the "reasonable probability" standard for determining prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel cases, the panel did not clearly apply this standard. Instead, the panel concluded that Detective Boczar’s testimony "did not rise to the level of overwhelming the proper evidence." Slip Op., p. 8. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.