From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cain

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Nov 30, 2023
No. 366655 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2023)

Opinion

366655

11-30-2023

People of Michigan v. Brandon Lewis Cain


LC No. 12-003375-01-FC

Anica Letica Presiding Judge Michael J. Riordan Kristina Robinson Garrett Judges

ORDER

The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only.

The motion to accept defendant's pleadings "as is" is GRANTED.

The motions for an evidentiary hearing and to expand the record, to hold the application in abeyance or stay the matter, for immediate consideration, and for peremptory reversal are each DENIED.

The delayed application for leave to appeal is DENIED. To clarify the record, defendant's first motion for relief from judgment was denied by the trial court in 2016. But on appeal to the Supreme Court, the circuit court's decision was vacated with respect to Wayne Circuit Court Case No. 12-003375-01-FC, and the matter remanded for reconsideration. People v Cain, 501 Mich. 1072 (2018). Then, on October 29, 2018, the circuit court entered an order resolving the motion pursuant to the Supreme Court's remand directive. Defendant sought leave to appeal that order in this Court in Docket No. 348562. This Court, viewing the matter through the lens of MCR 6.508(D), denied leave to appeal. People v Cain, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 13, 2019 (Docket No. 348562). The Supreme Court then denied leave to appeal this Court's decision on March 27, 2020. People v Cain, 505 Mich. 1016 (2020). Thus, defendant's first motion for relief from judgment was denied by the trial court in 2018, and his appeals of that decision were exhausted in 2020.

Nonetheless, in 2022, defendant filed a motion to "amend" his first motion for relief from judgment, along with an amended motion. The trial court's January 30, 2023 order, which is the order challenged in this application, purports to treat this as defendants "third" motion for relief from judgment. The court, however, failed to apply MCR 6.502(G), and instead addressed the merits of the motion under the good cause and actual prejudice standards of MCR 6.508(D). The court denied the motion.

While the trial court's analysis appears to have multiple errors, the fact of the matter is that, in 2022, there was no pending motion for relief from judgment for defendant to "amend." The trial court appropriately viewed defendant's "amended" motion for relief from judgment as a successive motion for relief from judgment (albeit his second, not third). Nearly all of the issues raised by defendant in this successive motion are barred by MCR 6.502(G), as they fail to present claims based on new evidence or a retroactive change in the law. One issue, in which defendant claims that a prosecution witness paid defendant's own retained counsel, does appear to be based in part on new evidence, and thus survives the procedural bar of MCR 6.502(G). However, a review of that claim shows that it lacks merit. Accordingly, and while for incorrect reasons, the trial court was correct to deny relief. This Court will not reverse where the trial court reached the correct result, albeit for incorrect reasons. People v Witherspoon, 257 Mich.App. 329, 335; 670 N.W.2d 434 (2003).


Summaries of

People v. Cain

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Nov 30, 2023
No. 366655 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2023)
Case details for

People v. Cain

Case Details

Full title:People of Michigan v. Brandon Lewis Cain

Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Date published: Nov 30, 2023

Citations

No. 366655 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2023)