Opinion
366583
10-16-2023
People of Michigan v. Deangelo Tajuan Jones
LC No. 94-005655-03-FC
Christopher M. Murray, Presiding Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly, Noah P. Hood, Judges
ORDER
The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only. The "motion for immediate consideration/motion for appointment of counsel" is DENIED.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), the trial court's May 25, 2023 order is VACATED, and the matter REMANDED for reconsideration of defendant's motion for relief from judgment. The trial court's decision discusses defendant's arguments but never resolves the operative questions, which are (1) whether he has established a retroactive change in the law that occurred after his first motion for relief from judgment was filed, see MCR 6.502(G)(2)(a); and (2) if defendant has established any retroactive changes in the law, whether he is entitled to relief from judgment under MCR 6.508(D). Instead of addressing those questions, the trial court's decision denies the motion first by stating that defendant is not entitled to relief because he received a parolable life sentence pursuant to a plea agreement. However, defendant was convicted at a jury trial, not by a plea or plea agreement. And, his sentence was to a term of 40 to 60 years' imprisonment, not parolable life. The trial court's opinion then states that the court had no authority to modify defendant's sentence because he did not raise the same issues in the trial court, in a motion to remand for resentencing filed in the Court of Appeals, pursuant to MCR 6.429(A). Clearly, the time to file a motion under MCR 6.429 has passed. But MCR 6.429(B)(4) explains that in such circumstances, the defendant "may seek relief pursuant to the procedure set forth in subchapter 6.500." And, subchapter 6.500 of the Court Rules allows a defendant to raise sentencing challenges in a motion for relief from judgment. See MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b)(iv) (defining "actual prejudice" as: "in the case of a challenge to the sentence, the sentence is invalid"). And, while MCR 6.429(C) places certain limitations on a party's ability to raise issues on appeal, the trial court was not sitting as an appellate court in this instance. Rather, defendant raised sentencing issues in a motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to subchapter 6.500 of the Court Rules. MCR 6.429 is irrelevant to the analysis.
On remand, the trial court must adjudicate the issues raised in defendant's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to the procedures set forth in subchapter 6.500 of the Court Rules. As this is a successive motion, the trial court must first decide whether defendant's claims of error survive the procedural bar of MCR 6.502(G). And if any of defendant's claims do survive the procedural bar of MCR 6.502(G), the court must then decide whether defendant is entitled to relief from judgment under MCR 6.508(D). In that regard, we note that this Court is currently considering whether People v Parks, 510 Mich. 225; 987 N.W.2d 161 (2022), applies retroactively to cases on collateral review in two matters pending before this Court, People v Poole (COA Docket No. 352569), and People v Heard (COA Docket No. 355536). And, while this Court has addressed the retroactivity of People v Beck, 504 Mich. 605; 939 N.W.2d 213 (2019), in two published decisions, see People v Beesley, 337 Mich.App. 50, 62 n 4; 972 N.W.2d 294 (2021), and Adams v Parole Bd, 340 Mich.App. 251, 255 n 2; 985 N.W.2d 881 (2022), the Supreme Court has more recently directed this Court to address whether Beck applies retroactively on collateral review in another matter, People v Motten (COA Docket No. 363044), which is currently pending before this Court as well. See People v Motten, 991 N.W.2d 210 (Mich, 2023).
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.