Opinion
372257
03-05-2025
PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN v. BOBBY EDWARD SMITH
LC No. 20-047237-FH.
Mark T. Boonstra, Presiding Judge, Stephen L. Borrello, Matthew S. Ackerman, Judges.
ORDER
The motion to file a late answer is GRANTED and the answer filed with the motion is accepted. The delayed application for leave to appeal is DENIED because defendant is limited to seeking relief under MCR 6.500. See MCR 6.501; see also MCR 6.429(B)(4); MCR 6.431(A)(4). Defendant's "shell motion," which merely sought to extend time and expressly stated that it "did not include substantive issues," was not a motion for a new trial or a motion to correct an invalid sentence. See People v Beard, 327 Mich.App. 702, 706; 935 N.W.2d 118 (2019) (recognizing that we must look "beyond the party's labels and focus on the substance of the filing"). Even if his shell motion could be construed as a motion for a new trial or to correct an invalid sentence, the documentary evidence provided by defendant does not support that defendant timely filed this motion before October 20, 2023. See MCR 7.205(A)(2)(b). Defendant contends (without a supporting affidavit) that he mailed his shell motion in the same envelope as his motion to restore his appellate rights. The Register of Actions shows that defendant's motion to restore appellate rights was filed on October 19, 2023. There is, however, no entry for defendant's shell motion. The copy of the shell motion that defendant provided to this Court also lacks a date stamp to support that it was received by the trial court, and there is ultimately no evidence that the shell motion was received by the trial court before October 20, 2023. See Biafore v Baker, 119 Mich.App. 667, 669; 326 N.W.2d 598 (1982). Because defendant failed to file a timely motion for a new trial or to correct an invalid sentence, MCR 7.205(2)(b)(iv) is inapplicable and this Court lacks jurisdiction insofar as defendant attempts to apply for leave to appeal his September 12, 2022 judgment of sentence. See MCR 7.205(A)(2)(a). Defendant's delayed application is limited to the July 15, 2024 order denying defendant's "supplemental" motions filed on January 20, 2024, and June 10, 2024. Those motions were properly denied because defendant is limited to seeking relief under MCR 6.500. Leave to appeal is DENIED without prejudice to defendant moving the trial court for relief from judgment under MCR 6.500.