Opinion
SC 164228 SC 164229COA 355830 COA 355834
09-21-2022
Montcalm CC: 2020-026213-FC 2019-026041-FC
Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice, Brian K. Zahra, David F. Viviano, Richard H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh, Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices
ORDER
By order of May 6, 2022, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2022 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CAVANAGH, J. (concurring).
I agree with the Court's order denying leave to appeal. It is premature for this Court to address defendant's motion to remand, as the case call panel of the Court of Appeals could still grant him that relief. This order should not be understood as expressing any opinion on the merit of defendant's argument that a remand for an evidentiary hearing is necessary to appropriately resolve his claim on appeal. See, e.g., People v Poole, 497 Mich. 1022, 1022 (2015) ("[O]rders denying leave to appeal [are] not rulings on the merits of the issues presented."), citing Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich. 235, 260 (2000).