Opinion
SC: 159789 COA: 338742 SC: 159790 COA: 344432
12-23-2019
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damitrice Deshawn VANN, Defendant-Appellant. People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damitrice Deshawn Vann, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the parties’ appeals on the merits. The defendant was entitled to an appeal of right, with counsel. Douglas v. California , 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963) ; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 20. He timely requested, and initially received, appointed appellate counsel. Although the defendant purportedly received an appeal of right, the substitution of counsel filed in the Court of Appeals on November 23, 2011 resulted in both attorneys disclaiming responsibility for representing the defendant. The defendant was left without counsel of record for the remainder of the appeal, from a point before the filing of the brief on appeal. Accordingly, as both parties concede, the defendant was deprived of his right to a direct appeal with counsel. The remedy for this constitutional error is the reinstatement of the appeal. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 477, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) ; Peguero v. United States , 526 U.S. 23, 28, 119 S.Ct. 961, 143 L.Ed.2d 18 (1999). Since the defendant is currently represented by appointed appellate counsel, who has preserved his appellate rights in the courts below, all that remains to be remedied is the consideration of his direct appeal on the merits. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.