Opinion
SC: 163402 COA: 356746
04-01-2022
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Daryl HAMIEL, a/k/a Roland Smith Harrent, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of December 1, 2021, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the July 7, 2021 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. We DIRECT the Court of Appeals to address: (1) whether the defendant established good cause for the transcription of additional proceedings, MCR 6.433(C)(3) ; and if not, (2) what more the defendant was required to allege or provide to establish good cause under the court rule.
Viviano, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the Court's order remanding this case to the Court of Appeals and would instead deny leave to appeal because it appears to me that the trial court correctly denied defendant's request to have most or all of the lower court transcripts provided to him at public expense. Under MCR 6.433(C)(3), a defendant who wishes to pursue postconviction remedies can obtain transcripts of proceedings not already transcribed upon a showing of good cause. A mere conclusory statement that a transcript is necessary to pursue postconviction remedies is insufficient to establish good cause for obtaining transcripts under MCR 6.433(C). People v. Caston , 228 Mich.App. 291, 303 n 5, 579 N.W.2d 368 (1998). At a minimum, good cause requires a defendant to explain why the requested transcripts are needed to pursue the particular claim or claims for relief a defendant is asserting if the need is not apparent. Although the defendant in this case indicated the types of claims that he intended to assert in his motion for relief from judgment when he requested the transcripts, he has not explained (nor is it otherwise clear to me) why the transcripts are needed to develop these claims or file his motion. Since his request for transcripts is not meaningfully different from the request in Caston , it appears to me that the trial court properly denied his request.
In People v. Russell , 469 Mich. 1044, 679 N.W.2d 70 (2004), this Court denied leave to appeal "without prejudice to defendant's refiling ... his motion for relief from judgment, accompanied by a request, pursuant to MCR 6.433(C)(3), for an order directing transcription of the plea proceeding that the record indicates was conducted on January 22, 1993." The Court continued, "Defendant's limited mental abilities and his claim that he was not privy to the plea agreement would appear to support a finding of good cause to direct preparation of the transcript, if possible." Id. That a defendant wishing to pursue a motion for relief from judgment based on a claim that he was not privy to the plea agreement would need a transcript of the plea hearing is apparent without further explanation.