Carines plain error in Michigan

2023See, e.g., In re Hudson, 481 Mich 928 ; 763 NW2d 618 (2009). -5- deadline; if the party simply missed the deadline, how long afterward the party filed; how long the movant took to move to set aside the default; it should examine whether there was defective process or notice; it should consider the circumstances behind the failure to file or timely file;whether the failure was knowing or intentional; the size of the judgment, and whether the judgment results in ongoing liability, and whether the internal policies of the insurer were followed, if the defaulting party was an insurer.

2020The complete deprivation of counsel during critical stages of criminal proceedings is a “structural” constitutional error, see Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 ; 83 S Ct 792 ; 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963); People v Russell, 471 Mich 182 , 194 n 29; 684 NW2d 745 (2004)—in layperson’s terms, the type of error that deprives a defendant of the “basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function for determination of guilt or innocence,” Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8-9 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (cleaned up).

2020The complete deprivation of counsel during critical stages of criminal proceedings is a “structural” constitutional error, see Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 ; 83 S Ct 792 ; 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963); People v Russell, 471 Mich 182 , 194 n 29; 684 NW2d 745 (2004)—in layperson’s terms, the type of error that deprives a defendant of the “basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function for determination of guilt or innocence,” Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8-9 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (cleaned up).

2020The complete deprivation of counsel during critical stages of criminal proceedings is a “structural” constitutional error, see Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 ; 83 S Ct 792 ; 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963); People v Russell, 471 Mich 182 , 194 n 29; 684 NW2d 745 (2004)—in layperson’s terms, the type of error that deprives a defendant of the “basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function for determination of guilt or innocence,” Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8-9 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (cleaned up).

2020The complete deprivation of counsel during critical stages of criminal proceedings is a “structural” constitutional error, see Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 ; 83 S Ct 792 ; 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963); People v Russell, 471 Mich 182 , 194 n 29; 684 NW2d 745 (2004)—in layperson’s terms, the type of error that deprives a defendant of the “basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function for determination of guilt or innocence,” Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8-9 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (cleaned up).

2020The complete deprivation of counsel during critical stages of criminal proceedings is a “structural” constitutional error, see Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 ; 83 S Ct 792 ; 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963); People v Russell, 471 Mich 182 , 194 n 29; 684 NW2d 745 (2004)—in layperson’s terms, the type of error that deprives a defendant of the “basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function for determination of guilt or innocence,” Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8-9 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (cleaned up).

2020The complete deprivation of counsel during critical stages of criminal proceedings is a “structural” constitutional error, see Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 ; 83 S Ct 792 ; 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963); People v Russell, 471 Mich 182 , 194 n 29; 684 NW2d 745 (2004)—in layperson’s terms, the type of error that deprives a defendant of the “basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function for determination of guilt or innocence,” Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8-9 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (cleaned up).

2019Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 .

2016And any assumed OV scoring errors were 3 This is a reference to United States v Crosby, 397 F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005). -3- necessarily harmless for the same reason.

2013Because defendant’s decision not to testify prevents us from being able to determine whether the trial court’s ruling was erroneous, the Carines plain error standard is inapplicable. [Boyd, 470 Mich at 378 n 11.] Accordingly, in the case at bar, defendant waived his right to appellate review and the plain-error test is not applicable.

2012Accordingly, in the context of an unpreserved claim of a violation of the right to public voir dire, if it can be shown that the ultimate determination of guilt remains reliable, I agree with the majority that, under Michigan’s current law, the error may be examined for plain error under People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), 5 because “the remedy should be appropriate to the violation.” Waller, 467 US at 50 . 6 As for the majority’s application of the Carines plain-error factors, I agree that the first two prongs— that an error occurred and the error was plain — are clearly est

2009For these reasons, just as the Doyle error in this case does not support a finding of prejudice under the Carines plain-error standard, id. at 196-198, 768 N.W.2d 290 defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel's errors under the Strickland standard.