Opinion
No. 134706.
April 25, 2008.
Court of Appeals No. 277280.
Summary Dispositions April 25, 2008.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals. That court shall consider whether either of appellate counsel's two stated reasons for failing to timely file defendant's motion for resentencing and his delayed application for leave to appeal entitled defendant to have his April 10, 2007, application for leave to appeal considered under the standard applicable for direct appeals. Defendant's application should be considered under the standard for direct appeals if the Court of Appeals concludes either that the delay was caused by a trial court error and/or by counsel's reasonable conclusions regarding the filing period, or because counsel behaved unreasonably and, therefore, rendered ineffective assistance. See Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470, 477 (2000); Peguero v United States, 526 US 23, 28 (1999). We do not retain jurisdiction.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would remand this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the defendant's April 10, 2007, application for leave to appeal under the standard applicable to direct appeals because we believe that the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.