Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
January 28, 2013

MSC Order List: January 25, 2013

On Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court denied applications for leave to appeal, denied 19 motions for reconsideration, denied one motion for bypass, and dismissed one case on stipulation of the parties. The Court also remanded two matters to the Court of Appeals or trial court.

In People v. Howze, the Supreme Court directed the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to respond to the application for leave within 21 days. In its brief, the prosecutor was directed to address whether the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea in light of People v. Cole, 491 Mich, 325 (2012).

The Court also took action in Smith v. Department of Human Services Director. The Court heard oral argument on this application for leave on January 15, 2012. However, since that time, the Legislature has passed and Governor Snyder has signed 2012 PA 607, which amends MCL 400.57a and places additional restrictions on the defendant's ability to provide family independence program assistance. In light of this development, the Court vacated any portions of the circuit court and Court of Appeals orders to the extent the orders conflict with the new MCL 400.57a requirements. The Court also ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs within 21 days and address whether any of the remaining issues have been rendered moot by the new legislation.

Finally, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in Kenney v. Booker. On appeal, the Court will consider the differences between common law and statutory habeas corpus; the scope of habeas corpus review under MCL 600.4310; the effect of other available means of review on claims for habeas corpus in the context of parole revocation; the validity and scope of 'radical defect' requirements in habeas corpus matters; the type of relief that may be granted to successful claimants; and, the significance of any distinction between executive detention and judicially-ordered detention.

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.



+ -