People of Michigan v. Gregory Carl Washington
160707
| Mich. | Jul 29, 2021Background
- Gregory C. Washington was convicted in 2004 of second-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, felony-firearm, and felon-in-possession; he received an upwardly departed 40–60 year term for murder and other concurrent/consecutive sentences.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing in June 2006 because the trial court had not articulated "substantial and compelling reasons" for the upward departure.
- Washington filed an application for leave to appeal the COA remand to the Michigan Supreme Court; while that application was pending, the trial court resentenced him (Oct. 2006) pursuant to the COA remand.
- Washington later pursued postconviction relief; in 2016 he filed a successive motion arguing the 2006 resentencing was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while the Supreme Court application was pending; the trial court vacated the 2006 sentence and ordered resentencing.
- The Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court subsequently reviewed competing views about whether an appeal divests the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction, and whether a jurisdictional defect may be raised in a successive motion for relief from judgment.
- The Michigan Supreme Court majority held the 2006 resentencing was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that the trial court properly vacated the void sentence in 2016 despite the usual bar on successive motions; the case was remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did the trial court lack subject-matter jurisdiction to resentence while Washington’s application for leave to appeal was pending in the Michigan Supreme Court? | The People argued the trial court retained subject-matter jurisdiction and the error (if any) was procedural or an error in the exercise of authority, not a lack of jurisdiction. | Washington argued the pending Supreme Court application divested the trial court of jurisdiction over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal, rendering the 2006 resentencing void. | Held: The Supreme Court followed People v George and concluded the trial court was divested of subject-matter jurisdiction; resentencing while the application was pending was void. |
| 2) Is a subject-matter jurisdiction defect voidable under procedural rules restricting successive motions for relief from judgment? | The People contended MCR 6.502(G) bars successive motions absent statutory exceptions, so the jurisdictional claim raised in a successive motion should be barred. | Washington responded that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders a judgment void ab initio and may be raised at any time, including in a successive motion. | Held: The Court held jurisdictional defects render judgments void and are not constrained by the successive-motions bar; the trial court correctly vacated the void 2006 sentence. |
| 3) How does Luscombe (procedural-error line) affect the analysis? | The People relied on Luscombe to argue the trial court’s premature action was a procedural/exercise-of-authority error subject to harmless-error review. | Washington emphasized George and precedent treating appeals as divesting trial-court jurisdiction. | Held: The Court distinguished Luscombe as involving a custodial/clerical premature act with no pending application to the Supreme Court and reaffirmed George controls here. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v George, 399 Mich 638 (1977) (filing of appeal vests jurisdiction in appellate court and divests trial court of those aspects of the case involved in the appeal)
- People v Swafford, 483 Mich 1 (2009) (under current rules, trial court lacked jurisdiction to try/convict while application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court was pending)
- Luscombe v Shedd’s Food Prod. Corp., 212 Mich App 537 (1995) (trial court’s premature action after appeal was a procedural/exercise-of-authority error distinguishable from a subject-matter jurisdiction defect)
- Fox v Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Mich., 375 Mich 238 (1965) (defects in subject-matter jurisdiction render judgments void ab initio)
- Griggs v Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (filing a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the appellate court and divests the trial court of control over aspects of the case involved in the appeal)