People v. Good

• Decision Date: 13 April 2023
• Docket Number: 349268
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v JONATHAN JOSEPH GOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v JONATHAN JOSEPH GOOD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 349268

Court of Appeals of Michigan

April 13, 2023

Mecosta Circuit Court LC No. 08-006437-FC

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and CAMERON and RICK, JJ.

ON RECONSIDERATION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as on leave granted^[1] the trial court's order denying his motion for relief from judgment. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was convicted by a jury of safe breaking, seven counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny or a felony, first-degree home invasion, two counts of armed robbery, unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle, two counts of conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder, two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, attempted murder, witness intimidation, criminal enterprise, and seven counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. These offenses occurred during a one-month crime-spree in 2008 when defendant, a 36-year-old, led a group of teenagers in committing a series of crimes.

A. CASE HISTORY

In 2013, defendant appealed his convictions. This Court affirmed defendant's convictions, but remanded the case to the trial court for a reassessment of the attorney fees imposed by the trial court. People v Good, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 15, 2013 (Docket No. 295538), p 1 (Good I). Defendant appealed to our Supreme Court, which denied leave on September 29, 2014. People v Good, 497 Mich. 867 (2014). The trial court subsequently entered an amended judgment of sentence, this time imposing attorney fees in the amount of $20,638.33.

Defendant again appealed the trial court's calculation of attorney fees. People v Good, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 23, 2017 (Docket No. 329177), p 1 (Good II). Importantly, he filed a Standard 4 brief in which he claimed that: (1) he was denied the right to represent himself at the remand hearing regarding the attorney fees; (2) he was denied his right of allocution at the remand hearing; (3) he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel; and (4) he was overcharged for restitution, court costs, and fees. Id. at 1-8. This Court concluded that the trial court had again erred in calculating the amount of attorney fees. Id. at 1. We remanded the case for entry of the amended judgment of sentence reducing the amount owed for attorney fees. Id. at 8. Defendant appealed once again to our Supreme Court, which denied leave on October 5, 2017. People v Good, 501 Mich. 893 (2017).

B. PRESENT APPEAL

Defendant then filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court under MCR 6.500. He claimed that: (1) the court improperly ordered him to pay restitution for uncharged conduct; (2) the sentencing court incorrectly assessed points for offense variables based on judicially determined facts; (3) prior appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim concerning trial counsel's ineffective assistance involving an alleged illegal arrest; (4) prior appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that defendant should not have been assessed over $25,000 in transcript fees; (5) prior appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge defendant's status as a habitual offender; and (6) prior appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a number of claims of judicial misconduct. The trial court denied this motion in a written order:

Upon review of the filings, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Under MCR 6.508(D)(2)-(3), the Court may not grant relief if the motion alleges grounds for relief already decided against the defendant on appeal or grounds which could have been brought on appeal but were not. The Court may still grant relief under MCR 6.508(D)(3) if the defendant demonstrates good cause for why the grounds were not brought. [Defendant's] restitution for uncharged conduct and sentencing arguments have already been rejected on appeal. People v. Good, 2017 WL 722195 (Feb. 23, 2017). [Defendant] also argues that his trial and appellate counsels were ineffective for failing to raise numerous arguments. However, [defendant] represented himself at trial. On appeal, [defendant] used a Standard 4 brief to raise the arguments counsel did not. Therefore, any possible error caused by not raising these arguments was cured. People v. Lopez, [305 Mich.App. 686, 694; 854 N.W.2d 205 (2014)]. Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

This Court denied defendant's application for leave to appeal. People v Good, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered October 23, 2019 (Docket No. 349268). Defendant then applied to our Supreme Court for leave to appeal. In lieu of granting leave, our Supreme Court issued an order remanding the case to this Court for consideration, as on leave granted, of

(1) whether the defendant, by filing a Standard 4 supplemental brief on direct appeal, waived his right to claim ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in proceedings under MCR Subchapter 6.500; (2) whether the Court of Appeals decided the defendant's restitution and sentencing grounds for relief against him in the prior appeal, MCR 6.508(D)(2); and (3) if not, whether the defendant is entitled to relief from judgment on these grounds for relief. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. [People v Good, 507 Mich. 852 (2021).]

We now consider these issues.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion for relief from judgment "for an abuse of discretion and its findings of facts supporting its decision for clear error." People v Swain, 288 Mich.App. 609, 628; 794 N.W.2d 92 (2010). "A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." People v Grant, 329 Mich.App. 626, 634; 944 N.W.2d 172 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." People v Everett, 318 Mich.App. 511, 516; 899 N.W.2d 94 (2017) (citation omitted).

We review de novo several other issues presented in defendant's brief on appeal, including whether a party has waived a right, see Allard v Allard (On Remand), 318 Mich.App. 583, 593; 899 N.W.2d 420 (2017); Ladd v Motor City Plastics Co, 303 Mich.App. 83, 101; 842 N.W.2d 388 (2013), and "[w]hether a trial court followed an appellate court's ruling on remand ...." People v Lampe, 327 Mich.App. 104, 111; 933 N.W.2d 314 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted). We also review de novo constitutional issues, such as whether judicial misconduct denied a defendant a fair trial. People v Stevens, 498 Mich. 162, 168; 869 N.W.2d 233 (2015); People v Conat, 238 Mich.App. 134, 144; 605 N.W.2d 49 (1999).

III. STANDARD 4 BRIEF AND WAIVER

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred when it concluded that he waived his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by filing a Standard 4 brief.^[2] We agree.

Criminal defendants in Michigan have the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel. Const 1963, art 1, § 20; see also People v Craig, __Mich App__, __; __ N.W.2d__ (2022) (Docket No. 357896); slip op at 4. Alongside this right, criminal defendants may also supplement their appellate counsel's arguments by filing a "Standard 4" brief. Our Supreme Court explained this process, stating, in part: "When a defendant insists that a particular claim or claims be raised on appeal against the advice of counsel, counsel shall inform the defendant of the right to present the claim or claims in propria persona." Administrative Order No. 2004-6, 471 Mich. c, cii (2004).

In this case, the trial court denied defendant's motion for relief from judgment partially because defendant filed a Standard 4 brief in his earlier appeal. The trial court reasoned that "any possible error caused by not raising these arguments was cured." In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on People v Lopez, 305 Mich.App. 686; 854 N.W.2d 205 (2014). The Lopez defendant filed a Standard 4 brief alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective. Id. at 694. Despite this assertion, this Court determined the defendant's argument was abandoned for failure to "identify any specific legal issue that his appellate counsel failed to raise on appeal." Id. We also noted that "to the extent that [the] defendant argues that appellate counsel should have raised the issue of trial counsel being ineffective, because [the] defendant raises this issue in his Standard 4 brief, any possible error committed by his appellate counsel was cured." Id.

Initially, we must determine the precedential value of our statement that the Lopez defendant had "cured" his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel argument by filing a Standard 4 brief. Under MCR 7.215(J)(1), we are bound to follow "rule[s] of law" established by published decisions of this Court. However, not all statements in a published decision are considered rules of law-indeed, some statements are merely dicta. Dicta are "judicial comment[s] made during the course of delivering a judicial opinion, but [are] unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (though [they] may be considered persuasive)." People v Warner, 339 Mich.App. 125, 138; 981 N.W.2d 733 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

As noted, the Lopez Court concluded that the defendant had abandoned the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel issue and dispensed of the issue on that basis. Lopez, 305 Mich.App. at 694. Although we went on to note...