Summary
determining that defendant's subsequently filed post-conviction motion for relief from judgment was not a successive motion and barred by MCR 6.502(G) because defendant previously had filed only a motion for new trial and DNA testing pursuant to MCL § 770.16
Summary of this case from Kares v. MorrisonOpinion
SC: 154425 COA: 331774
06-27-2017
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Duncan Lorenzo ALEXANDER, Defendant–Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2016 order 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 December 17, 2015 opinion and order of the Macomb Circuit Court, which denied relief from judgment under MCR 6.502(G), and we REMAND this case to the circuit court for reconsideration. The defendant's motion for a new trial and DNA testing sought relief under MCL 770.16 rather than under MCR 6.508(D). Moreover, the motion was filed with regard to case 2009-005130-FC only, as shown on the circuit court's March 2, 2015 opinion and order denying relief. Under the circumstances, the defendant's subsequent motion for relief from judgment, filed with regard to cases 2009-005130-FC, 2009-005132-FC, and 2009-005135-FC, is not barred by MCR 6.502(G). On remand, the trial court shall review the defendant's motion for relief from judgment under the standard set forth in MCR 6.508(D).
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Wilder, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.