Opinion
368006
02-01-2024
PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN v. DEXTER CARL JONES
LC No. 19-001500-01-FC
Thomas C. Cameron, Presiding Judge Michael J. Kelly, Colleen A. O'Brien Judges
ORDER
The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only.
The delayed application for leave to appeal is DENIED because defendant has failed to establish that the trial court erred in denying the motion for relief from judgment. However, we note several errors in the trial court's opinion.
First, the trial court returned defendant's motion for relief from judgment, and declined to adjudicate it until ordered to do so by this Court, see In re Jones, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 9, 2023 (Docket No. 365533), because defendant failed to file a brief in support of his motion as the trial court believed was required by MCR 2.119(A)(2). MCR 2.119(A)(2) is a rule of civil procedure, which requires the filing of a brief in support of motions that present issues of law. While it is true that the rules of civil procedure generally apply in criminal matters, there are exceptions. One such exception is: "when a statute or court rule provides a like or different procedure[.]" MCR 6.001(D)(3). Here, MCR 6.502(C) explains the proper form for a motion for relief from judgment. This rule does not require a brief. It contains different page limitations, different formatting, and different content requirements than are found in MCR 2.119(A)(2). MCR 6.502(C) also states that the motion "must be substantially in the form approved by the State Court Administrative Office . . . ." MCR 6.502(C). That form, SCAO Form CC 257, notes that the defendant may file a brief if they wish. Defendant filed his motion using this SCAO form. While defendant could have also filed a brief in support of his motion, MCR 6.502(C) did not require a brief.
Second, the trial court's substantive analysis begins by stating that consideration of defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are barred under "MCR 6.508(D)(3)" because he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The correct provision is MCR 6.508(D)(2). But as correctly noted by the trial court, the claim of ineffective assistance raised on direct appeal was entirely different than those raised in the motion for relief from judgment. As this Court has explained in other orders, the fact that a defendant raises one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal does not mean that the defendant can never raise any other, distinct claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for relief from judgment. See, e.g., People v Gladney, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 28, 2023 (Docket No. 363000); People v Smith, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 14, 2023 (Docket No. 362946); People v Ellis, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 25, 2022 (Docket No. 361199); People v Terry, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 21, 2022 (Docket No. 359562); and People v Kent, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May, 28, 2020 (Docket No. 353342).
Lastly, the trial court's opinion states that the actual prejudice and good cause test is found in MCR 6.502. The actual prejudice and good cause test is found in MCR 6.508(D)(3), not in the provisions of MCR 6.502.
That said, the motion did not demonstrate that trial counsel was ineffective, as the trial court correctly held. The motion was thus correctly denied because defendant did not demonstrate actual prejudice or good cause under MCR 6.508(D)(3). Thus, the application is denied because defendant has not established that the trial court erred by denying the motion for relief from judgment.