People of Michigan v. Shane Jeremy Hawkins ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                                        Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    December 23, 2019                                                                                 Bridget M. McCormack,
    Chief Justice
    David F. Viviano,
    Chief Justice Pro Tem
    159215
    Stephen J. Markman
    Brian K. Zahra
    Richard H. Bernstein
    Elizabeth T. Clement
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                                                     Megan K. Cavanagh,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                                         Justices
    v                                                                 SC: 159215
    COA: 339020
    Monroe CC: 16-243183-FH
    SHANE JEREMY HAWKINS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________/
    By order of July 29, 2019, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer Issue II
    of the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2019 judgment of the Court of
    Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application is again
    considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we
    VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment addressing whether the defendant
    established that Detective Boczar’s testimony was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant
    reversal, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals to address the question
    whether the defendant has established that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
    defense counsel’s failure to object to Detective Boczar’s testimony, the outcome of this
    trial would have been different. Strickland v Washington, 
    466 US 668
    , 694 (1984).
    While the Court of Appeals quoted the “reasonable probability” standard for determining
    prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel cases, the panel did not clearly apply this
    standard. Instead, the panel concluded that Detective Boczar’s testimony “did not rise to
    the level of overwhelming the proper evidence.” Slip Op, p 8. In all other respects, leave
    to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions
    presented should be reviewed by this Court.
    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.
    December 23, 2019
    s1218
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 159215

Filed Date: 12/23/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/24/2019