People v. Hamiel

• Decision Date: 17 November 2022
• Docket Number: 356746
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN DARYL HAMIEL, also known as ROLAND SMITH HARRENT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVEN DARYL HAMIEL, also known as ROLAND SMITH HARRENT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 356746

Court of Appeals of Michigan

November 17, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 15-000595-FH

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and CAVANAGH and CAMERON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, who in March 2016 pled nolo contendre to several offenses, filed in the circuit court a September 2020 "motion to supply indigent defendant with court transcripts/records." The circuit court denied the motion, and we denied leave to appeal. People v Hamiel, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 7, 2021 (Docket No. 356746). The Michigan Supreme Court subsequently ordered this Court to consider defendant's appeal by leave granted, and "to address: (1) whether the defendant established good cause for the transcription of additional proceedings, MCR 6.433(C)(3); and if not, (2) what more the defendant was required to allege or provide to establish good cause under the court rule." People v Hamiel, 971 N.W.2d 221 (Mich, 2022). We affirm.

Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to the offenses of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2); and assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration, MCL 750.520g(1). In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the charges of assault with a dangerous weapon, MCL 750.82; larceny in a building, MCL 750.360; and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c. In March 2016, the circuit court sentenced defendant to 87 months to 20 years imprisonment for the home-invasion offense and 6 to 10 years imprisonment for the assault offense. Defendant did not appeal his convictions or sentences. Approximately four years later, in June 2020, defendant, in propria persona, moved the circuit court for certain documents and the transcript of proceedings held in the district and circuit courts so that he could file a delayed application for leave to appeal or a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.500 et seq. The circuit court denied defendant's motion for failure to establish good cause under

1

MCR 6.433(C)(3). In September 2020, defendant again moved the circuit court for the transcript of lower court proceedings and certain records. The circuit court again denied defendant's motion in a November 2020 order.

This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a circuit court's decision to grant a defendant's motion for production of transcripts at public expense. Const 1963, art 1, § 20; People v Cross, 30 Mich.App. 326, 336; 186 N.W.2d 398 (1971), aff'd 386 Mich. 237 (1971). "A trial court abuses its discretion when it chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." People v Parrott, 335 Mich.App. 648, 656; 968 N.W.2d 548 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

MCR 6.433 governs requests that indigent defendants make for documents and transcripts for postconviction proceedings. Specifically, MCR 6.433(A) controls requests for documents and transcripts that are made by indigent defendants who are eligible for an appeal of right, and MCR 6.433(B) controls requests made by indigent defendants who may file an application for leave to appeal. MCR 6.433(C) is dedicated to indigent defendants who are not eligible to file an appeal of right or an application for leave to appeal, and who are instead pursuing other postconviction proceedings.

MCR 6.433(C) governs defendant's motion, as defendant was never entitled to an appeal of right from his March 2016 judgment of sentence because he entered a plea of nolo contendere. See MCR 7.203(A)(1)(b) (this Court has jurisdiction over an appeal of right from a final judgment of the circuit court except in criminal cases in which the conviction is based on a plea nolo contendere or guilty). Defendant could have pursued an appeal by leave pursuant to MCR 7.203(B)(1) because MCR 7.203(B)(1) specifically permits this Court to grant leave to appeal from judgments of the circuit court that are not final judgments appealable by right. However, defendant never did so and is no longer eligible to do so because the time for filing an application for leave has expired. MCR 7.205(A)(2)(a) (providing that applications for leave to appeal must be filed within six months after entry of the judgment appealed...