On Wednesday, April 28, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied seven applications for leave to appeal, dismissed two cases on stipulation of the parties, denied one motion for reconsideration, and denied the motion of the defendant-appellant in People v. Holden, Case No. 140256, for the reason that the defendant failed to provide extraordinary and compelling reasons in support of his motion seeking leave to file a 72-page application for leave to appeal.' The Court also issued several housekeeping orders including two orders granting temporary admission to the practice of law in Michigan, four orders granting extension of the time for filing briefs, and granting the motions of John A. Braden and the Michigan Municipal League to file briefs amicus curiae in the matter of Mawri v. City of Dearborn, Case No. 139647.' The Court also issued two substantive criminal orders with are discussed after the jump.
In People v. Parker, Case No. 139985, the Court issued an order directing attorney Dennis Powers to respond to the defendantƒ''s allegations that Mr. Powers prepared an application for leave to appeal on the prison legal services form and informed the defendant that filing this form would preserve his appellate rights, as well as the allegation that the defendant paid Mr. Powers over $1,500 in attorney fees for representing him in this matter, although the only document Mr. Powers filed acknowledging his representation was a four paragraph motion for reconsideration.' Justices Corrigan and Young concurred and wrote that they would have referred Mr. Powers to the Attorney Grievance Commission without need for this further briefing.' A copy of the Courtƒ''s order can be found here.
In People v. Taylor, Case No. 140187, the Court vacated the sentence of the Tuscola Circuit Court and remanded the case for resentencing.' In reaching this decision, the Court stated that for the reasons stated in the Court of Appealsƒ'' dissenting opinion, the trial court erred in scoring offense variable 10.' In all other respects, the defendantƒ''s application for leave to appeal was denied.' The Courtƒ''s order is here.