People of Michigan v. Marcus Donte Russell-Minter
330949
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to obtaining $1,000–$20,000 by false pretenses and was sentenced to 46 months to 60 years; an amended judgment was entered Feb 19, 2015.
- MAACS appointed appellate counsel on Mar 6, 2015, giving an Aug 19, 2015 deadline to seek leave to appeal or other relief.
- Appellate counsel met defendant in July 2015 and on Aug 11, 2015 informed defendant she would not pursue an appeal, asserting no viable issues; no Anders brief or motion to vacate appointment was filed before the deadline.
- Defendant disputed counsel’s assessment and complained to MAACS; MAACS advised counsel not to file motions that would implicate a conflict arising from counsel’s prior handling of the case.
- On Nov 9, 2015 (after the deadline), appellate counsel moved to withdraw and for substitute counsel; the trial court denied the motion and later denied reconsideration, suggesting counsel could file an Anders brief.
- This appeal challenges the trial court’s denial of substitute appellate counsel on grounds counsel’s lack of diligence and a resulting conflict foreclosed defendant’s appellate rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause existed to appoint substitute appellate counsel | MAACS: trial court properly denied substitution because no true breakdown in relationship was shown | Defendant: counsel’s failure to file timely Anders brief or move to vacate appointment and letting deadline lapse shows lack of diligence and justifies substitution | Court: Good cause existed — counsel’s lack of diligence foreclosed appeal and warranted appointment of substitute counsel |
| Whether counsel’s actions created a conflict preventing Anders filing | Prosecution: (no brief filed) implied no opposition to appointment question | Defendant: counsel could not, after foreclosing relief by her own actions, competently argue lack of viable issues (conflict under MRPC 1.7(b)) | Court: There was a conflict; counsel could not properly pursue an Anders procedure after her own conduct foreclosed relief |
| Whether substitution would unreasonably disrupt the judicial process | Trial court implied substitution might be unwarranted; no specific disruption alleged | Defendant: appointment would not disrupt process; only remedy to restore appellate rights | Court: No evidence substitution would unreasonably disrupt the process; appointment appropriate |
| Whether denial of substitute counsel was an abuse of discretion | Trial court: denial based on finding no true breakdown and invited Anders brief instead | Defendant: denial deprived him of appellate review due to counsel’s inaction | Court: Denial was an abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded to appoint substitute appellate counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for court review when appointed counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- People v. McFall, 309 Mich. App. 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (lack of counsel diligence can constitute good cause for substitution)
- People v. Tooson (In re Withdrawal of Attorney), 231 Mich. App. 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (discussing Anders procedures and counsel withdrawal)
- People v. Strickland, 293 Mich. App. 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for substitution of counsel)