People of Michigan v. Gregory Carl Washington
908 N.W.2d 924
Mich. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2004 Washington was convicted of second-degree murder, two counts of AWIM, felony-firearm, and felon-in-possession; the trial court imposed upward-departure sentences and a second-habitual-offender enhancement.
- On direct appeal this Court (June 13, 2006) affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing because the trial court had not articulated "substantial and compelling reasons" for its upward departure.
- While Washington’s application for leave to the Michigan Supreme Court remained pending, the trial court resentenced him on October 4, 2006 to the same terms; the Supreme Court later denied leave on December 28, 2006.
- Washington filed a second motion for relief from judgment in 2016 arguing the October 4, 2006 resentencing was void for lack of jurisdiction because the remand order was stayed while the Supreme Court application was pending. The trial court granted relief, vacated the October 4, 2006 sentence, and ordered resentencing.
- The prosecution appealed, arguing the successive motion was barred by MCR 6.502(G), which permits only one motion for relief from judgment except for two explicit exceptions (retroactive change in law or newly discovered evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCR 6.502(G) barred Washington’s successive motion for relief from judgment | The prosecution: MCR 6.502(G) unequivocally bars successive motions unless one of its two exceptions applies | Washington: The motion raised a jurisdictional defect that may be raised at any time and is not subject to the successive-motion bar | The Court: MCR 6.502(G) does bar successive motions; the trial court erred in relying on that rule to grant relief, but the motion’s substance required review |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence Washington on Oct. 4, 2006 while the Supreme Court application was pending | The prosecution: The October 4, 2006 resentencing was valid | Washington: The resentencing was void because the remand was stayed while his application for leave to the Supreme Court was pending | The Court: The trial court lacked jurisdiction; the October 4, 2006 judgment of sentence is void |
| Whether lack of jurisdiction can be raised in a successive motion for relief from judgment | The prosecution: Successive-motions rule precludes consideration | Washington: Subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time | The Court: Jurisdictional defects may be raised anytime; the trial court properly recognized the sentencing order was a nullity and could act to effectuate jurisdiction despite procedural-bar issues |
| Whether the trial court’s vacatur/resentencing order should be upheld despite procedural error in using MCR 6.502 | The prosecution: Trial court should have returned the successive motion; relief improper | Washington: Relief was meritorious on jurisdictional grounds | The Court: Although the trial court erred in granting relief under MCR 6.502, the right result issued on jurisdictional grounds, so the vacatur/resentencing was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Swain, 288 Mich. App. 609 (Mich. Ct. App.) (successive-motions rule and exceptions under MCR 6.502(G))
- People v Swafford, 483 Mich. 1 (Mich.) (trial court lacks jurisdiction during pendency of Supreme Court leave application; remand proceedings stayed)
- People v Clement, 254 Mich. App. 387 (Mich. Ct. App.) (courts must recognize limits of jurisdiction; acts without jurisdiction are void)
- In re AMB, 248 Mich. App. 144 (Mich. Ct. App.) (subject-matter jurisdiction is an absolute requirement)
- Gleason v Michigan Dep’t of Transp, 256 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App.) (appellate courts may affirm on correct result for wrong reason)
- People v Buie, 285 Mich. App. 401 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard of review for interpretation of court rules)
- Lockridge v. People, 498 Mich. 358 (Mich.) (sentencing-reasoning doctrine replacing rigid guidelines requirement cited for nonretroactivity issue)
- Hillsdale County Sr. Services, Inc. v. Hillsdale County, 494 Mich. 46 (Mich.) (question of subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)