From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pittman

Court of Appeals of Michigan
May 3, 2024
No. 369182 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 3, 2024)

Opinion

369182

05-03-2024

PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN v. ALLEN EUGENE PITTMAN


LC No. 13-002552-01-FC

Mark T. Boonstra Presiding Judge Jane E. Markey Stephen L. Borrello Judges

ORDER

Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the delayed application for leave to appeal, we VACATE the Wayne Circuit Court's October 10, 2023 order denying defendant's successive motion for relief from judgment and REMAND this matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with this order. In support of his successive motion for relief from judgment, defendant presented several affidavits that were executed after the trial court had denied his first motion for relief from judgment, and he specifically argued that those affidavits constituted "a claim of new evidence" for purposes of MCR 6.502(G)(2). By nevertheless concluding that the motion was procedurally barred under MCR 6.502(G), the trial court erred. See, e.g., People v Wagle, 508 Mich. 950 (2021); People v McClinton, 501 Mich. 944 (2017). On remand, the trial court should reconsider the disputed motion on the merits.

In light of the foregoing, the motion to remand for a Ginther hearing is DENIED without prejudice to defendant seeking or being granted such a hearing on remand.

People v Ginther, 390 Mich. 436; 212 N.W.2d 922 (1973).

This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.


Summaries of

People v. Pittman

Court of Appeals of Michigan
May 3, 2024
No. 369182 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 3, 2024)
Case details for

People v. Pittman

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN v. ALLEN EUGENE PITTMAN

Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Date published: May 3, 2024

Citations

No. 369182 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 3, 2024)