Opinion
365736
11-27-2023
People of Michigan v. Donald Meachum Taylor
LC No. 2015-000883-FC
Kathleen A. Feeney Presiding Judge Douglas B. Shapiro Christopher P. Yates Judges
ORDER
The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only.
The delayed application for leave to appeal is DENIED because defendant has failed to establish that the trial court erred in denying the motion for relief from judgment.
Shapiro J., would, In lieu of granting leave to appeal, remand this case for an evidentiary hearing limited to defendant's claim that the Michigan State Police DNA analysis excluded defendant as the source of the semen found in the victim and whether based upon it he is entitled to a new trial. The DNA report is dated September 15, 2015 but it is unclear whether it was provided to defendant and his counsel prior to his guilty plea and sentencing. Although the PSIR references substantial evidence of guilt, the result of the DNA analysis, if authentic and reliable, is inexplicable and significant exculpatory evidence. It is not clear from the record before us whether trial or appellate counsel were aware of the DNA analysis, or if they were, why it was not raised by either. In the trial court's opinion denying a hearing on defendant's motion for relief from judgment there is little reference to the DNA analysis submitted with the motion. As to the DNA report being a matter for a Ginther hearing, the court's opinion states, "The Court does not agree with Defendant that proof of actual innocence exists in this matter. Defendant chose to rely on DNA evidence to absolve him of any wrongdoing yet refused to sign an affidavit pointing to evidence to exclude Defendant as a suspect." However, based on the materials before us, it appears that defendant submitted a sworn notarized affidavit dated June 6, 2022 with his motion for relief from judgment. The affidavit reads in pertinent part "there was exculpatory DNA evidence that the alleged crime did not occur. This DNA evidence . . . exclude[s] me as a possible donor to the alleged vaginal penetration" He also provided a copy of what he claims is the relevant DNA analysis and it does state that defendant "is excluded as a possible donor to the DNA profile from [the vaginal/cervical swab" While finality is an important value, the presence of the DNA report raises questions that in my view should not be left unanswered. Accordingly, I would remand for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing as to the authenticity and accuracy of the report and to hear testimony from prior counsel as to when they became aware of the report and why they did not seek relief based upon it.