Opinion
368392
02-21-2024
PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN v. KELVIN CLEOPHUS MEADOR
LC No. 84-006795-01-FC
Kathleen A. Feeney Presiding Judge Kathleen Jansen Michael J. Riordan Judges
ORDER
The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only.
The delayed application for leave to appeal is DENIED for lack of merit in the grounds presented. Defendant's direct appeal in this matter concluded in 1987. People v Meador, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 11, 1987 (Docket No. 87257). He thus cannot seek a new trial pursuant to MCL 770.1 or MCR 6.431; rather, he is only able to seek postjudgment relief by filing a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to subchapter 6.500 of the Court Rules. MCR 6.431(A)(4); People v McEwan, 214 Mich.App. 690, 693 n 1; 543 N.W.2d 367 (1995); People v Watroba, 193 Mich.App. 124, 126; 483 N.W.2d 441 (1992). See also People v Rogers, 335 Mich.App. 172, 192; 966 N.W.2d 181 (2020) ("Additionally, this Court has held that our Supreme Court superseded MCL 770.1 with the adoption of MCR 6.431").
That said, the trial court's order has several errors. The trial court suggested that defendant was attempting to supplement the motion with" 'first time submitted' appendices to buttress his claims," and that the court would not consider any such appendices. But it does not appear that defendant provided any appendices to the court, and even if he had, we are aware of no authority that would preclude a defendant seeking postjudgment relief from providing appendices in support of the motion that had not previously been submitted to the court. Indeed, such a rule would seemingly prohibit any claim of new evidence-claims which the court rules do allow. See, e.g., MCR 6.502(G)(2).
The circuit court's order then addresses the motion pursuant to MCR 6.431, despite the fact that the motion is untimely and thus cannot be brought under that rule, MCR 6.431(A)(4), and MCL 770.1, despite the existence of binding precedent explaining that MCL 770.1 has been superseded by the Court Rules. See Rogers, 335 Mich.App. at 192. The court's substantive analysis was that any error "in failing to explain the causation element of [MCL] 750.83 was non-constitutional." But defendant was not convicted of a violation of MCL 750.83 (assault with intent to murder); he was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316. MCL 750.83 was not in any way relevant to this case.
Notwithstanding these errors, the trial court reached the correct result by denying the motion, as explained at the outset of this order. This Court will not reverse where the trial court reached the correct result, albeit for incorrect reasons. People v Hawkins, 340 Mich.App. 155, 195; 985 N.W.2d 853 (2022). Accordingly, the application is denied.