Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
March 25, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
149299 & (18) Stephen J. Markman
Mary Beth Kelly
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, David F. Viviano
Plaintiff-Appellee, Richard H. Bernstein,
Justices
v SC: 149299
COA: 320827
Calhoun CC: 10-002810-FC
SAM DANIEL SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
By order of November 25, 2014, the Calhoun Circuit Court was directed to submit
to the Court and the parties a copy of the transcript of the October 18, 2013 evidentiary
hearing, and the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to
appeal the April 2, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the
transcript and the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is
again considered. We caution the Calhoun Circuit Court that when expansion of the
record is necessary to resolve a defendant’s motion for relief from judgment under
MCR Subchapter 6.500, it can only do so within the constraints set out in MCR 6.507(A).
Pursuant to MCR 6.507(A), a trial court “may direct the parties to expand the record by
including any additional materials it deems relevant to the decision on the merits of the
motion. The expanded record may include letters, affidavits, documents, exhibits, and
answers under oath to interrogatories propounded by the court.” In this case, the circuit
court did not direct the parties to expand the record, but rather acted sua sponte to
conduct an evidentiary hearing at which the defendant’s trial counsel was questioned
directly by the court regarding certain actions taken while representing the defendant at
trial. The defendant appeared for the evidentiary hearing, but was not represented by
counsel. The prosecution confirms that both it and the defendant were merely observers
at this hearing. When the circuit court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required
to resolve an issue, as occurred here, it must comply with MCR 6.508(C), and it must
appoint counsel for an indigent defendant, as required by MCR 6.505(A).
Notwithstanding this procedural error, leave to appeal is DENIED, because the defendant
has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
March 25, 2015
p0318
Clerk