People v. Davenport
| Decision Date | 03 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 146652.,COA No. 306868. |
| Citation | 494 Mich. 875,832 N.W.2d 389 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Ervine Lee DAVENPORT, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Prior report: Mich.App., 2012 WL 6217134.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 13, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. While the Court of Appeals erroneously failed to consider defendant's claim in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 570, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) (), citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 505, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), the error was harmless under the facts of this case. Given the substantial evidence of guilt presented at trial, we cannot conclude that there was an unacceptable risk of impermissible factors coming into play.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Davenport
...Id. , at *2, n. 2. The Michigan Supreme Court denied Mr. Davenport's request for discretionary review. People v. Davenport , 494 Mich. 875, 832 N.W.2d 389, 390 (2013).CMr. Davenport next sought relief in federal district court, filing a habeas petition in the Western District of Michigan. U......
-
Davenport v. MacLaren
...leave to appeal, it said that Holbrook should have governed the lower court's harmless-error analysis. People v. Davenport , 494 Mich. 875, 832 N.W.2d 389 (2013) ( Davenport III ) (citing Holbrook v. Flynn , 475 U.S. 560, 570, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) ). But the result would ha......
-
Davenport v. Maclaren
...2012 WL 6217134, at *3 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2012). The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Davenport , 494 Mich. 875, 832 N.W.2d 389, 390 (2013). It stated that, although "the Court of Appeals erroneously failed to consider defendant's claim in light of the United S......