Opinion
371762
10-10-2024
PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN v. CARL JEROME ARMSTRONG
LC No. 23-005 809-01-FH
Christopher P. Yates Presiding Judge, Mark T. Boonstra, Sima G. Patel Judges
ORDER
The motion to review bail pursuant to MCR 6.106(H) is DENIED without prejudice as a result of the movant's failure to carry his "burden of going forward" under MCR 6.106(H)(2)(c). Despite requests for him to order the relevant transcripts-and correspondence from the Clerk of this Court providing further guidance about how to do so-defendant has failed to provide proof of ordering those transcripts, let alone copies of them. Without any ability to review the reasoning the trial court stated in support of its disputed ruling, we cannot deem it an abuse of discretion.
Although the movant captioned his initial filing in this Court as an "EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL," we have treated it as a motion for bail review in the spirit of affording the pro se filer a "greater degree of lenity and generosity in construing his pleadings[.]" See People v Owens, 338 Mich.App. 101,117; 979 N.W.2d 345 (2021). Unlike delayed applications for leave to appeal, motions for bail review filed in this Court need not be accompanied by either an entry fee or a motion to waive fees. See MCR 6.106(H)(1). And by policy of the Clerk of this Court, such motions automatically receive "emergency" status and expedited handling, without any need for the defendant to file a motion for immediate consideration or pay the related fee. Also, had we treated defendant's filing as a delayed application for leave to appeal, it would, by now, have been subject to dismissal for failure to provide proof of ordering the required transcripts. See MCR 7.205(B)(4); MCR 7.217(A).