People of Michigan v. Derrick Lavelle Randolph
332221
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Defendant Derrick Lavelle Randolph was convicted by jury of AWIGBH, felon in possession, and felony-firearm and sentenced April 29, 2014 as a fourth habitual offender.
- Defense counsel did not timely appeal the original judgment; appointed appellate counsel was ineffective in filing a timely appeal.
- Defendant later moved under MCR 6.502 / 6.508(D)(3) alleging improperly scored offense variables (OV 4 and OV 13); prosecutor conceded OV 13 was unsupported and affected the guidelines.
- Trial court found trial counsel ineffective for failing to challenge OV scoring, granted relief, and resentenced defendant on February 22, 2016 (amended judgment entered).
- On appeal from the amended judgment, defendant raised unrelated trial errors (ineffective assistance at trial; improper admission of evidence) that were not raised in his motion for relief from judgment.
- The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction to consider those trial-related claims on appeal from the resentencing because they were forfeited by the failure to timely appeal the original judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this appeal may reach trial-related claims raised after resentencing | Prosecutor: Appeal from amended judgment is limited to resentencing issues; trial claims are untimely and jurisdictionally barred. | Randolph: Amended judgment of sentence permits an appeal of all issues arising from the judgment, including trial matters. | Court: Appeal from resentencing is limited to the resentencing proceeding; trial claims forfeited by failure to timely appeal original judgment and are not before the court. |
| Whether the amended judgment revives appeal-as-of-right for earlier final order | Prosecutor: Amended judgment does not restart the 42-day appeal clock or revive prior forfeited appeal-as-of-right. | Randolph: Amended judgment should allow consideration of earlier trial claims. | Court: Entry of amended judgment does not revive the original appeal-as-of-right; timing requirements control jurisdiction. |
| Whether defendant can seek ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising trial claims in the 6.508 motion | Prosecutor: Any challenge to denial/grant of 6.508 relief must be raised by leave application, not as part of the resentencing appeal. | Randolph: Requests that the Court consider ineffective assistance by prior appellate counsel regarding the motion for relief from judgment. | Court: Ineffective-assistance claim tied to the 6.508 proceeding is outside the scope of an appeal from the amended judgment; such issues require leave under MCR 7.205. |
| Appropriate procedural avenues after forfeiture of appeal-as-of-right | Prosecutor: Defendant had postappeal remedies (MCR 7.205 leave, MCR 6.429, MCR 6.508) and used MCR 6.508; those do not recreate the original appeal-as-of-right. | Randolph: N/A (argues for broader appeal scope). | Court: Postappeal procedures are substitutes for a timely appeal but do not revive the original appeal-as-of-right. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305 (2004) (ineffective assistance at sentencing that leads to inaccurately scored offense variables entitles defendant to relief under MCR 6.508(D)(3)).
- People v Gauntlett, 152 Mich App 397 (1986) (appeal following resentencing is limited to issues arising from the resentencing proceeding).
- People v Kaczmarek, 464 Mich 478 (2001) (appeal from resentencing is limited to issues that could not have been raised in the initial appeal; rules prevent multiple appeals of right on same final determination).
- People v Pickett, 391 Mich 305 (1974) (timing rules for appeals prevent successive appeals of right and protect finality of judgments).
- Chen v Wayne State Univ, 284 Mich App 172 (2009) (failure to comply with timing requirements for an appeal as of right deprives the court of jurisdiction).