People of Michigan v. Jonathan Joseph Good, 329177

Background

Jonathan Good was convicted of numerous offenses (safe breaking; multiple counts of breaking and entering; first-degree home invasion; armed robbery; conspiracy and assault with intent to commit murder; attempted murder; witness intimidation; operating a criminal enterprise; and multiple felony-firearm counts). His convictions were previously affirmed but the Court vacated part of the judgment imposing attorney fees and remanded for a determination of court‑appointed attorney costs for services rendered March 28, 2008–March 19, 2009.
On remand the trial court entered an amended judgment requiring Good to pay $20,638.33 in court-appointed attorney fees. The prosecutor conceded error and the Court of Appeals found two invoices had been double-counted, reducing the correct fee total to $16,767.83.
Good filed a pro se Standard 4 brief raising multiple issues related to the remand hearing: denial of a late request to represent himself, denial of allocution at the remand hearing, ineffective assistance of counsel on remand for various alleged failures, Lockridge/Crosby challenges to judicial fact‑finding on sentencing variables, restitution for uncharged conduct, and alleged double collection by the Department of Corrections.
The Court of Appeals reviewed procedural limits of the remand (scope confined to calculation of attorney fees for the specified period) and repeatedly held matters beyond that narrow remand could not be revisited on remand.
The court rejected Good’s claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his late self‑representation request because it was untimely, (2) he was entitled to allocution at the fee‑determination hearing because the hearing was not a resentencing, and (3) his remand counsel was ineffective for the specific failures argued given the scope of the remand and the record.
The court directed the trial court to correct the amended judgment of sentence and issue an amended order to remit clarifying payments already made and the adjusted balances, and remanded for that limited correction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amended attorney‑fee assessment included overpayment	County/prosecution conceded error that fees were miscalculated	Good argued two invoices were double counted and sought reduction	Court agreed; remanded to reduce fee from $20,638.33 to $16,767.83
Denial of late request to represent himself at remand hearing	Good argued he was denied constitutional right to self‑representation	Trial court said request was untimely (made as court prepared to rule)	Denial was not abuse of discretion; request untimely and would disrupt proceedings
Right of allocution at remand hearing	Good argued due‑process right to allocute at the remand proceeding	Prosecution/trial court: remand not a resentencing so allocution rule inapplicable	No allocution required because hearing concerned fee calculation, not resentencing
Ineffective assistance of counsel on remand (multiple subclaims)	Good alleged counsel failed to challenge: fees for pro se filings, charges for nonprimary staff, failure to seek judgment revision during statutory changes, failure to raise Lockridge, and restitution for uncharged conduct	Counsel argued remand scope limited to specific fee period; many challenges were beyond remand and/or unsupported by record	Majority of ineffective‑assistance claims rejected: records show services rendered; statute authorized recovering costs of legal assistance; raising certain issues would have been beyond remand or futile
Lockridge/Crosby sentencing challenge	Good contended judicial fact‑finding on OVs requires remand under Lockridge/Crosby	Good also argued counsel ineffective for not raising Lockridge on remand	Court held Lockridge challenge was beyond scope of remand and therefore not available on remand
Restitution / alleged double collection by DOC	Good claimed restitution included losses from uncharged conduct and that DOC could double‑collect because both amended judgment and order to remit were sent to DOC	State noted restitution was previously imposed at sentencing and remand did not revisit restitution; only order to remit authorizes DOC withdrawals	Court declined to revisit restitution for uncharged conduct (beyond remand); directed trial court to clarify payments already made and amend order to remit to avoid confusion about collections

Key Cases Cited

People v. Russell, 471 Mich 182 (discussion of right to self‑representation and required colloquy)
People v. Anderson, 398 Mich 361 (standards for advising defendant when waiving counsel)
People v. Petty, 469 Mich 108 (scope of common‑law allocution and MCR 6.425)
People v. Buie (On Remand), 298 Mich App 50 (futility standard for motions on remand)
People v. McKinley, 496 Mich 410 (restitution limited to losses that were part of factual predicate for conviction)
People v. Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (statutory interpretation of court’s authority to impose financial obligations)
People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (judicial fact‑finding and Alleyne/Blakely implications for sentencing variables)
Hill v. Curttain, 792 F.3d 670 (timeliness of self‑representation requests; denial for untimeliness not requiring colloquy)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain‑error standard and forfeiture of constitutional rights)