Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 26, 2019 Bridget M. McCormack,
Chief Justice
156444 & (34)(35)(40)(46)(51) David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem
(52)(58)(62)
Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
Richard H. Bernstein
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Elizabeth T. Clement
Plaintiff-Appellee, Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices
v SC: 156444
COA: 337715
Wayne CC: 11-010003-FC
SHOKELLE REON McKAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
By order of March 5, 2019, former appellate attorneys were directed to file
supplemental briefs. On order of the Court, the briefs having been received, the
application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is again
considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we
REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court, which shall, in accordance with
Administrative Order 2003-03, determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so,
appoint counsel to represent the defendant at an evidentiary hearing pursuant to People v
Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), to determine whether the failure to timely seek appellate
review was caused by the ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v Flores-Ortega,
528 US 470 (2000). In making this determination, the circuit court shall consider
whether “the defendant . . . filed a delayed request for the appointment of counsel
pursuant to MCR 6.425(G)(1) within the 6-month period,” MCR 7.205(G)(4)(a) – such
that MCR 7.205(G)(4), as in force at the time of the defendant’s appeal, applies to this
case. If the court rule does apply, the circuit court shall consider the impact, if any, of the
court rule on the determination of whether the defendant’s former appellate attorneys
were ineffective.
If the circuit court determines that one or both of the former appellate attorneys
were ineffective, the defendant, with the assistance of counsel, may file an application for
leave to appeal his convictions and sentences in the Court of Appeals under the standard
for direct appeals, and/or any appropriate post-conviction motions in the circuit court,
within six months of the date of the circuit court’s ruling. The defendant may include
2
among the issues raised, but is not required to include, the issues that were raised in the
motion for relief from judgment that was filed in 2015.
Accordingly, the motion to remand and motion for an evidentiary hearing are
GRANTED in part to the extent consistent with this order. The motions to supplement
are also GRANTED. The motions for peremptory reversal, motion for bond pending
appeal, motions to strike the attorneys’ responses, and motion for miscellaneous relief are
DENIED.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
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.
June 26, 2019
a0625
Clerk
People of Michigan v. Shokelle Reon McKay
Combined Opinion