Opinion
363000
02-28-2023
People of Michigan v. Krista Nicole Gladney
LC No. 17-003639-01-FC
Noah P. Hood Presiding Judge Michael J. Riordan Kristina Robinson Garrett Judges
ORDER
The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the delayed application, the trial court's April 4, 2022 order is VACATED IN PART and the matter REMANDED for reconsideration of defendant's motion for relief from judgment. We find no error in the trial court's disposition of defendant's claims of judicial bias, and thus do not disturb that portion of the decision. However, the trial court erred to the extent it concluded that consideration of any of defendant's claims was precluded by MCR 6.508(D)(2). None of the issues raised in defendant's motion for relief from judgment were decided against her in her prior appeal. See People v Gladney, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 19, 2019 (Docket No. 340198). The trial court's analysis of defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is also insufficient. The trial court's generic analysis, which does little more than assert that defendant's constitutional rights were protected, does not address the substance of any of defendant's claims, and thus fails to comply with the trial court's obligation to state the reasons for its denial. See MCR 6.504(B)(2); People v Finnie, 504 Mich. 968 (2019). Further, in explaining the applicable law, the trial court's opinion states that the failure to present witnesses can only amount to ineffective assistance of counsel if the failure to present witnesses deprives the defendant of a substantial defense. The caselaw standing for that premise was overruled by the Supreme Court in People v Jurewicz, 506 Mich. 914; 948 N.W.2d 448 (2020) ("[A] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel premised on the failure to call witnesses is analyzed under the same standard as all other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel"); see also People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38, 51; 826 N.W.2d 136 (2012) (same). Further, it appears that the trial court has failed to adjudicate other motions filed by defendant related to her motion for relief from judgment. On remand, the trial court shall adjudicate all motions filed by defendant that remain outstanding. And in reconsidering the motion for relief from judgment, the trial court shall, in light of this order, reconsider all claims raised by defendant aside from the claims of judicial bias.
The motion to remand and motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing are DENIED AS MOOT in light of this Court's disposition of the application. The denial of these motions is without prejudice to the trial court's ability to direct that an evidentiary hearing be held, should the court deem one necessary on remand, pursuant to MCR 6.508(C). See also MCR 6.505(A) ("Counsel must be appointed if the court directs that oral argument or an evidentiary hearing be held").
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.