People of Michigan v. Ronald Edward Owens Jr, 352908

Background

In April 2009 Cornelius Owens was shot; evidence and witness testimony tied the incident to defendant Ronald Owens and associates; defendant was convicted of multiple counts including assault with intent to do great bodily harm, conspiracy, witness intimidation, and procuring perjury, and was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender.
The convictions and sentences were previously affirmed on direct appeal; defendant later filed habeas corpus in federal court seeking relief under People v Lockridge.
The U.S. District Court granted habeas relief in part, concluding the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s assault and conspiracy convictions and vacated those convictions.
Defendant filed a successive state motion for relief from judgment arguing his sentencing guidelines and variable scores were invalid because they relied on the now-vacated convictions; the prosecution opposed, arguing the federal order was not a change in law or "new evidence."
The trial court granted the successive motion, ordered resentencing, and held the vacatur and related authorities undermined the prior sentencing; the prosecution appealed.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirms: it finds the trial court erred in treating the habeas order as a "retroactive change in law" but that the error was harmless because the habeas vacatur qualified as "new evidence" warranting relief and resentencing; appellate counsel remains appointed for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Owens)	Held
May the trial court recharacterize a pro se successive motion to consider a retroactive change in law?	Recharacterization was improper; court lacked authority to treat motion as raising a different ground sua sponte.	MCR 6.502/6.508 do not force a pro se movant to cite the precise exception; court may construe pleadings liberally and consider applicable exceptions.	Court: No abuse — recharacterization permissible where parties had notice and opportunity to be heard; pro se filings construed liberally.
Is a federal habeas vacatur a "retroactive change in the law" under MCR 6.502(G)(2)?	"Retroactive change in law" means a change in law of general application, not an individual case ruling; habeas vacatur is not that.	The vacatur altered the legal basis for sentencing and thus should qualify as a retroactive change affecting relief eligibility.	Court: Trial court erred to treat the habeas order as a retroactive change in law (term is legal term of art limited to rules of general application), but error was harmless.
Can a federal court’s habeas decision vacating convictions constitute "new evidence" under MCR 6.502(G)(2)?	Judicial opinions are not "evidence"; the habeas ruling is legal, not factual evidence for sentencing purposes.	The habeas vacatur undermines factual findings relied on at sentencing and therefore functions as newly discovered evidence affecting resentencing.	Court: Yes — a federal vacatur can be "new evidence" for successive-motion purposes because it tends to disprove facts used in the PSIR/OV scoring and would likely change resentencing.
Was defendant entitled to relief based on actual innocence or good cause?	The record does not support actual innocence; good cause alone is not an independent basis for relief.	Defendant contends actual innocence or good cause supports successive relief.	Court: Rejects actual innocence (no new evidence undermining convictions for the counts still challenged); good cause not an independent ground here.

Key Cases Cited

People v Lockridge, 496 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015) (holding Michigan's sentencing-guidelines statutory scheme must be applied as advisory)
People v Beck, 504 Mich 605; 939 NW2d 213 (2019) (acquitted conduct may not be used to increase a defendant's sentence)
People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609; 794 NW2d 92 (2010) (threshold showing required for successive motions under MCR 6.502)
People v Maxson, 482 Mich 385; 759 NW2d 817 (2008) (tests for determining retroactivity of new criminal-law rules)
People v Barnes, 502 Mich 265; 917 NW2d 577 (2018) (retroactivity analysis in collateral-review context)
People v Grissom, 492 Mich 296; 821 NW2d 50 (2012) (four-part test for relief based on newly discovered evidence)
People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634; 780 NW2d 321 (2010) (trial court must resolve challenges to factual accuracy of information used at sentencing)
People v Osantowski, 481 Mich 103; 748 NW2d 799 (2008) (trial court's findings of fact support offense-variable scoring)
Schlup v Delo, 513 US 298; 115 S Ct 851; 130 L Ed 2d 808 (1995) (standard for actual innocence gateway to review)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US 97; 97 S Ct 285; 50 L Ed 2d 251 (1976) (pro se litigants entitled to liberal construction of pleadings)
People v Carpentier, 446 Mich 19; 521 NW2d 195 (1994) (defendant bears burden to establish entitlement to collateral relief)
People v Williams, 483 Mich 226; 769 NW2d 605 (2009) (rules of interpretation applied to court rules)