Opinion
SC: 159192 COA: 345271
09-27-2019
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon David FINNIE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the March 27, 2018 order of the Calhoun Circuit Court denying the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment, and we REMAND this case to the trial court for reconsideration of that motion. The trial court’s stated basis for denying the motion was that "the defendant’s motion is without merit." However, the order failed to "include a concise statement of the reasons for the denial," as required by MCR 6.504(B)(2).
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Markman, J. (dissenting).
Whereas this Court presumably satisfies its obligation under Const. 1963, art. 6, § 6 to provide the "reasons for each denial of leave to appeal" by issuing a general statement that "we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court," I discern no principled reason why the trial court’s statement that "the defendant’s motion is without merit" does not similarly satisfy its obligation under MCR 6.504(B)(2) to "include a concise statement of the reasons for the denial." Because I would not hold the trial court to a higher or different standard than that to which we hold ourselves, I respectfully dissent and would instead deny leave to appeal.
Zahra, J., joins the statement of Markman, J.