People v. Richards, 315 Mich. App. 564

Kyle Richards was convicted of assault of a prison employee and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 50 months to 40 years, to run consecutively.
The incident occurred January 3, 2013, during transport to the segregation unit at Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility; the victim officer Balmes testified he was spit on from a restraint slot while in a shower cell.
Saliva on the officer’s arm and pants was photographed; the officer reported the misconduct and later washed off the saliva; defense questioned whether the saliva could have been from water or other sources.
Richards filed multiple pretrial motions and repeatedly changed counsel; a new attorney was appointed before trial, and Richards eventually requested to proceed pro per during voir dire, which the court denied.
Richards testified at trial and objected to not being allowed to call certain inmate witnesses; the court indicated witness issues could be addressed later.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but remanded for further inquiry on resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of self-representation request	Richards timely asserted self-representation; denial was error.	Court’s denial violated Faretta and related standards by failing to inquire into timeliness.	Untimeliness supported; denial affirmed and no abuse of discretion.
Faretta/MCR 6.005(D) inquiry requirement	Court should have conducted a Faretta/MCR 6.005(D) inquiry before denying self-representation.	No mandatory pre-application inquiry required when timeliness governs.	No mandatory inquiry required; decision upheld as reasonable.
Destruction/preservation of saliva evidence	Failure to preserve saliva evidence violated due process if exculpatory or bad faith.	Saliva evidence could have been exculpatory; police acted in bad faith by not preserving.	No due process violation; evidence was potentially exculatory but not shown to be exculatory or bad faith.
Resentencing under Steanhouse/Lockridge	Sentence was unreasonable under Milbourn principles; guidelines advisory post-Lockridge.	Lockridge/Steanhouse require resentencing to reflect reasonableness.	Remanded for consideration of whether resentencing is required in light of Steanhouse/Lockridge.
Ex Post Facto/Notice timing for habitual offender enhancement	Lockridge retroactivity affects notice timing; challenge preserves error.	Issue waived; or, if not, applicable retroactivity applies.	Waiver; or no plain error; Lockridge retroactive but error not shown; no relief.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation; not absolute; timing considerations)
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (U.S. 2000) (unwaived right to counsel; provides framework for knowing, intelligent waiver)
People v. Hill, 485 Mich 912 (Mich. 2009) (timeliness and disruption considerations in denial of self-representation)
Hill v. United States (Sixth Circuit analysis), 792 F.3d 674 (6th Cir. 2016) (timeliness standard; last-minute requests may be denied if disruptive)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due process and failure to preserve potentially useful evidence; bad faith required)
People v. Hanks, 276 Mich. App. 91 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (burden to show exculpatory value or bad faith in destruction of evidence)
People v. Johnson, 197 Mich. App. 362 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (destruction of evidence; bad faith standard)
People v. Lonsby, 268 Mich. App. 375 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (retroactivity and new sentencing rule application)