From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hogans

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Mar 29, 2016
499 Mich. 877 (Mich. 2016)

Opinion

Docket No. 151402. COA No. 324521.

03-29-2016

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Phillip L. HOGANS, Defendant–Appellant.


Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the defendant's November 7, 2014 delayed application for leave to appeal under the standard applicable to direct appeals. Counsel was timely requested and appointed on direct review, but waited until only two months remained before expiration of the time for seeking leave to appeal, MCR 7.205(F), before moving to withdraw for lack of appealable issues, without following the proper procedure under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel was permitted to withdraw with approximately one month left in the direct review period. New counsel did raise issues on the defendant's behalf; however, new counsel was not appointed until after the deadline. Accordingly, whether from ineffective assistance of counsel or delays in the trial court, the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal. See Roe v. Flores–Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 477, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23, 28, 119 S.Ct. 961, 143 L.Ed.2d 18 (1999).

We do not retain jurisdiction.


Summaries of

People v. Hogans

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Mar 29, 2016
499 Mich. 877 (Mich. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Hogans

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Phillip L. HOGANS…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Mar 29, 2016

Citations

499 Mich. 877 (Mich. 2016)
876 N.W.2d 520