Summary
acknowledging the backlog of cases due to the COVID-19 pandemic
Summary of this case from People v. StovallOpinion
SC: 158918 COA: 339725
11-05-2021
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josephus ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of May 1, 2020, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Washington (Docket No. 160707). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 29, 2021, ––– Mich. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2021 WL 3201310 (2021), the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to Jackson Circuit Court for a determination under United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (CA 2, 2005), as to whether it would have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015). The trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to make this determination before the expiration of the time for the defendant to file an application for leave to appeal in this Court. MCR 7.215(F)(1)(a). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Viviano, J. (dissenting).
The majority applies People v. Washington , ––– Mich. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2021 WL 3201310 (2021) (Docket No. 160707), a case I dissented from and believe was wrongly decided. For the reasons stated in my dissent there, I do not believe that the trial court here lacked subject-matter jurisdiction when it affirmed defendant's sentences before his period for seeking leave to appeal the Court of Appeals judgment had expired. The trial court's actions were in error, violating MCR 7.215(F)(1)(a), under which the Court of Appeals judgment that the trial court acted pursuant to was not yet effective. Because, in my view, this error did not implicate the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, see Washington , ––– Mich. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d –––– ( VIVIANO , J., dissenting), slip op. at 16, it was subject to the foundational principle that we only address issues raised by the parties. See Mich. Gun Owners, Inc. v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch. , 502 Mich. 695, 709-710, 918 N.W.2d 756 (2018). Defendant has not raised this error, and therefore I would not afford him any relief on this ground. In reaching a different conclusion, the Court today sends the case back to the trial court so that defendant can be sentenced for a fifth time despite the fact that no substantive errors at the previous sentencings have been identified. Instead, because of a mere timing error, the victim and any witnesses once again might be haled into court so that the same proceedings that took place at the last sentencing less than two years ago can be repeated. This course is unnecessary as a matter of law and simply serves to further burden the trial courts, which already face a massive backlog of cases brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. See Administrative Order No. 2021-7, ––– Mich –––– (2021) ( VIVIANO , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). I therefore dissent from this result but concur in denying leave in all other respects.