People of Michigan v. Zouelfikar Mahmoud Nehmeh ( 2017 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
October 5, 2017 Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice
151310 Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Richard H. Bernstein
Plaintiff-Appellee, Joan L. Larsen
v SC: 151310 Kurtis T. Wilder,
COA: 324096 Justices
Wayne CC: 05-010832-FH;
08-003200-FC;
08-003209-FC
ZOUELFIKAR MAHMOUD NEHMEH,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
By order of June 28, 2016, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015
order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v
Roark (Docket No. 152562). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on
May 31, 2017, 500 Mich ___ (2017), the application for leave to appeal the March 12,
2015 order of the Court of Appeals is 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 to
reappoint attorney Arthur Landau, if feasible, to represent the defendant as on direct
appellate review. If this appointment is not feasible, the trial court shall appoint other
counsel to represent the defendant. See Halbert v Michigan, 545 U.S. 605; 125 S. Ct. 2582;
162 L. Ed. 2d 552 (2005). Based on our review of the record, the circuit court granted
original appointed appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and appointed substitute
appellate counsel, who failed to act on the defendant’s behalf within the time for direct
appeal before the circuit court appointed attorney Landau in his stead. Thus, through no
fault of the defendant, he lost the right to direct review of his convictions and sentences.
On remand, substitute appellate counsel, once appointed, may file an application for
leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals for consideration under the standard for direct
appeals, and/or any appropriate postconviction motions in the circuit court, within six
months of the date of the circuit court’s order appointing or reappointing counsel.
Counsel may include among the issues raised, but is not required to include, the issues
that he raised on behalf of the defendant in his motion for relief from judgment that was
filed in 2014.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
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.
October 5, 2017
p0928
Clerk