Opinion
No. 138842.
September 23, 2009.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals No. 290402.
Actions on Applications for Leave to Appeal from the Court of Appeals.
Summary Disposition.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse that part of the March 4, 2009, Court of Appeals order imposing sanctions against defense counsel. In this case, the defendant was not advised at sentencing of his right to appointed appellate counsel, and he was later provided appointed counsel pursuant to Halbert v Michigan, 545 US 605 (2005). Defense counsel complied with the deadlines that this Court had previously established for counsel appointed under similar circumstances, see, e.g., People v Corn, 477 Mich 903 (2006). Specifically, counsel filed a postjudgment motion within six months, consistent with MCR 6.429(B)(3). Four months after that motion was denied and within a year of his appointment, defense counsel then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, consistent with his obligations under MCR 7.205. Under these circumstances, we conclude that defense counsel should not be sanctioned, and we direct the Court of Appeals to issue a refund to counsel. The cases cited in the Court of Appeals March 4, 2009, order are inapposite because there was no Halbert issue presented in those cases. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.