Skip to main content

April 2016

Apr 2016
21
April 21, 2016

MSC grants MOA to consider whether failing to inform defendant of lifetime electronic monitoring makes CSC-I plea involuntary

In People v. Roark, No. 152562, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument on the application for leave to appeal to consider three issues: first, whether the defendant, who pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the first degree (“CSC-I”), was accurately advised of the direct consequences of his guilty plea, which included lifetime electronic monitoring; second, whether the defendant has demonstrated actual prejudice pursuant to MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b); and three, whether the defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known about the lifetime electronic monitoring requirement. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea because the trial court failed to advise him of mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring, which rendered his plea involuntary.

Apr 2016
21
April 21, 2016

MSC grants MOA to consider whether CSC-I conviction requires lifetime electronic monitoring

In People v. Comer, No. 152713, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument on the application for leave to appeal to consider two issues: first, whether MCL 750.520n requires that the defendant, who pled guilty to  criminal sexual conduct in the first degree (“CSC-I”), be sentenced to lifetime electronic monitoring, and second, if so, whether a trial court is authorized—in the absence of a motion filed by any party—to amend the defendant’s judgment of sentence twenty months after the original sentencing. The Court of Appeals held, which we blogged about here, that a defendant convicted of CSC-I is subject to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring, even if the trial court mistakenly omitted the electronic monitoring from defendant’s first Judgment of Sentence.

Apr 2016
21
April 21, 2016

Terminating parental rights because parental rights have previously been terminated violates due process, says the COA

In In re Gach, No. 328714, the Court of Appeals held that MCL 712A.19b(3)(l), which authorizes termination of parental rights where the parent’s rights to another child were previously terminated, violates due process under the state and federal constitutions. 

Apr 2016
21
April 21, 2016

COA: Trial courts have a heightened duty to determine the motivation on a Batson challenge where non-verbal communication is the alleged basis

In the consolidated cases of People v. Tennille, No. 323059, and People v. Rutledge, No. 323314, the defendants appealed their convictions of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, contending that the prosecution used peremptory challenges to improperly strike African-American jurors in contravention of Batson v. Kentucky.  The Court of Appeals found that the trial court failed to make any factual determinations on whether the strikes were race-neutral and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Apr 2016
15
April 15, 2016

MSC holds that mortgage-lender could still sue third-parties who induced bad loans even after the lender purchased the mortgaged property for “full credit” at foreclosure sale

If the mortgage-lender bids the full amount of the debt in a foreclosure sale, the lender can still sue third parties for any loss caused by the fraud or breach of contract in closing on the defaulted loan, according to Bank of America, NA v. First American Title Insurance Co., No. 149599.  Called a “full credit bid,” giving full credit for the debt in exchange for the property satisfies the debt and bars any claim against the mortgagor-debtor for a deficiency.  But it does not bar a claim against third parties who wrongfully induced the loan for loss, if the properties were not worth the amount bid.  According to the Michigan Supreme Court, the “full credit bid” rule inures only to the benefit of the debtor, and does not eliminate claims against third parties.

Displaying results 13-18 (of 27)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset