Opinion
SC: 162297 COA: 354676
10-22-2021
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renaldo Ramon PRESSWOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the motion to supplement the pleadings is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motions for the appointment of an accident reconstructionist, to remand, for appointment of counsel, and to expand the record are DENIED.
McCormack, C.J. (concurring).
I agree with the Court's decision to deny leave because I do not believe that the defendant, Renaldo Presswood, can show prejudice from what he alleges was ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. I write separately because while I agree with the trial court that Presswood's motion should be denied, he was not required to show good cause for his failure to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal.
After Presswood was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, he appealed the conviction with the assistance of appellate counsel. His attorney raised one claim in the Court of Appeals, and Presswood raised several additional claims in a Standard 4 supplemental brief. See Administrative Order 2004-6. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. People v. Presswood , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 18, 2018 (Docket No. 339360), 2018 WL 5276305. Representing himself, Presswood sought leave to appeal in this Court, raising a mix of claims that had been included in his appellate counsel's brief and in his Standard 4 brief. We denied leave to appeal. People v. Presswood , 503 Mich. 1001, 924 N.W.2d 550 (2019). Presswood then filed this motion for relief from judgment in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal. People v Presswood , unpublished opinion of the Genesee Circuit Court, issued August 4, 2020 (Case No. 15-037810-FC); People v Presswood , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 17, 2020 (Docket No. 354676).
In a motion for relief from judgment, a litigant can raise a claim that has not been previously presented to the courts if they can establish "good cause" to explain why the claim was not raised on direct appeal. MCR 6.508(D)(3)(a). The court can only grant relief if the litigant can demonstrate actual prejudice from the excused error. MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b).
One way a litigant can show good cause for bringing a claim that could have been litigated previously but was not is by demonstrating that their appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to bring the claim on direct appeal. People v. Reed , 449 Mich. 375, 378, 535 N.W.2d 496 (1995). This makes sense: If an attorney missed a meritorious claim on direct appeal, the remedy for that constitutional violation is to allow the litigant to raise the claim in a motion for relief from judgment. And if the missed claim was meritorious, the litigant will also have a new claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Presswood's motion for relief from judgment did this. Presswood alleged that his appellate counsel failed to raise meritorious claims on direct appeal and failed to request an evidentiary hearing to expand the record to support those claims. In denying the motion, the trial court ruled that Presswood failed to establish good cause for this ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because he did not raise it on direct appeal.
But of course ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not litigable on direct appeal, as it hasn't happened yet. Presswood's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim can't be rejected for his failure to bring the claim before the deficient performance occurred.
Because Presswood has not shown prejudice from this failure, however, I concur with the court's order.