defendant pressing an unpreserved claim in Michigan

2019“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights.” People v Lechleitner, 291 Mich App 56, 59 ; 804 NW2d 345, 347 (2010), citing People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2019“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights.” People v Lechleitner, 291 Mich App 56, 59 ; 804 NW2d 345, 347 (2010), citing People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2017“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights, and the reviewing court should reverse only when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”18 Moreover, defense counsel’s acquiescence to admission of the photographs effectively waived appellate review of this issue because there is no error to review when, rather than forfeiting an issue by failing to assert a right in a timely manner, the defendant waives an issue by intentionally relinqu

2017“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights, and the reviewing court should reverse only when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”18 Moreover, defense counsel’s acquiescence to admission of the photographs effectively waived appellate review of this issue because there is no error to review when, rather than forfeiting an issue by failing to assert a right in a timely manner, the defendant waives an issue by intentionally relinqu

2017“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights, and the reviewing court should reverse only when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”18 Moreover, defense counsel’s acquiescence to admission of the photographs effectively waived appellate review of this issue because there is no error to review when, rather than forfeiting an issue by failing to assert a right in a timely manner, the defendant waives an issue by intentionally relinqu

2017“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights, and the reviewing court should reverse only when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”18 Moreover, defense counsel’s acquiescence to admission of the photographs effectively waived appellate review of this issue because there is no error to review when, rather than forfeiting an issue by failing to assert a right in a timely manner, the defendant waives an issue by intentionally relinqu

2017We disagree. 30 It is reasonable to conclude that the juror “with ties to the school” was Juror 14, as Juror 14 had promptly disclosed after Raderstorf’s testimony that she recognized Raderstorf from their mutual place of employment. 31 Budzyn, 456 Mich at 92 n 14. 32 People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 640-641 ; 588 NW2d 480 (1998). -7- To the extent that this claim of error rests on the admissibility of Killips’s testimony, McBee failed to preserve this issue by objecting to Killips testimony on that basis.33 “A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affe

2017We disagree. 30 It is reasonable to conclude that the juror “with ties to the school” was Juror 14, as Juror 14 had promptly disclosed after Raderstorf’s testimony that she recognized Raderstorf from their mutual place of employment. 31 Budzyn, 456 Mich at 92 n 14. 32 People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 640-641 ; 588 NW2d 480 (1998). -7- To the extent that this claim of error rests on the admissibility of Killips’s testimony, McBee failed to preserve this issue by objecting to Killips testimony on that basis.33 “A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affe

2017This notion is incompatible with other constitutional provisions that contemplate the powers of the legislative branch,76 as well as a long line of case law—developed both before and after 1963—addressing the Legislature’s power to enact, amend, or repeal statutory law.77 Moreover, Harner’s interpretation of the phrase “general revision” in Const 1963, art 4, § 36 is at odds with this Court’s interpretation of that phrase as used in other constitutional 70 Vandenberg, 307 Mich App at 61 . 71 Id. 72 Id. (citation omitted). 73 Id. at 61-62 (citation and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in or

2017This notion is incompatible with other constitutional provisions that contemplate the powers of the legislative branch,76 as well as a long line of case law—developed both before and after 1963—addressing the Legislature’s power to enact, amend, or repeal statutory law.77 Moreover, Harner’s interpretation of the phrase “general revision” in Const 1963, art 4, § 36 is at odds with this Court’s interpretation of that phrase as used in other constitutional 70 Vandenberg, 307 Mich App at 61 . 71 Id. 72 Id. (citation omitted). 73 Id. at 61-62 (citation and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in or

2017We disagree. 30 It is reasonable to conclude that the juror “with ties to the school” was Juror 14, as Juror 14 had promptly disclosed after Raderstorf’s testimony that she recognized Raderstorf from their mutual place of employment. 31 Budzyn, 456 Mich at 92 n 14. 32 People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 640-641 ; 588 NW2d 480 (1998). -7- To the extent that this claim of error rests on the admissibility of Killips’s testimony, McBee failed to preserve this issue by objecting to Killips testimony on that basis.33 “A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affe

2017We disagree. 30 It is reasonable to conclude that the juror “with ties to the school” was Juror 14, as Juror 14 had promptly disclosed after Raderstorf’s testimony that she recognized Raderstorf from their mutual place of employment. 31 Budzyn, 456 Mich at 92 n 14. 32 People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 640-641 ; 588 NW2d 480 (1998). -7- To the extent that this claim of error rests on the admissibility of Killips’s testimony, McBee failed to preserve this issue by objecting to Killips testimony on that basis.33 “A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affe

2017This notion is incompatible with other constitutional provisions that contemplate the powers of the legislative branch,76 as well as a long line of case law—developed both before and after 1963—addressing the Legislature’s power to enact, amend, or repeal statutory law.77 Moreover, Harner’s interpretation of the phrase “general revision” in Const 1963, art 4, § 36 is at odds with this Court’s interpretation of that phrase as used in other constitutional 70 Vandenberg, 307 Mich App at 61 . 71 Id. 72 Id. (citation omitted). 73 Id. at 61-62 (citation and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in or

2017This notion is incompatible with other constitutional provisions that contemplate the powers of the legislative branch,76 as well as a long line of case law—developed both before and after 1963—addressing the Legislature’s power to enact, amend, or repeal statutory law.77 Moreover, Harner’s interpretation of the phrase “general revision” in Const 1963, art 4, § 36 is at odds with this Court’s interpretation of that phrase as used in other constitutional 70 Vandenberg, 307 Mich App at 61 . 71 Id. 72 Id. (citation omitted). 73 Id. at 61-62 (citation and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in or

2017“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights, and the reviewing court should reverse only when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”18 Moreover, defense counsel’s acquiescence to admission of the photographs effectively waived appellate review of this issue because there is no error to review when, rather than forfeiting an issue by failing to assert a right in a timely manner, the defendant waives an issue by intentionally relinqu

2017“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights, and the reviewing court should reverse only when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”18 Moreover, defense counsel’s acquiescence to admission of the photographs effectively waived appellate review of this issue because there is no error to review when, rather than forfeiting an issue by failing to assert a right in a timely manner, the defendant waives an issue by intentionally relinqu

2017“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights, and the reviewing court should reverse only when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”18 Moreover, defense counsel’s acquiescence to admission of the photographs effectively waived appellate review of this issue because there is no error to review when, rather than forfeiting an issue by failing to assert a right in a timely manner, the defendant waives an issue by intentionally relinqu

2017“A defendant pressing an unpreserved claim of error must show a plain error that affected substantial rights, and the reviewing court should reverse only when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”18 Moreover, defense counsel’s acquiescence to admission of the photographs effectively waived appellate review of this issue because there is no error to review when, rather than forfeiting an issue by failing to assert a right in a timely manner, the defendant waives an issue by intentionally relinqu

2002Generally, “a defendant is entitled to resentencing where a sentencing court fails to exercise its discretion because of a mistaken belief in the law.” People v Green, 205 Mich App 342, 346 ; 517 NW2d 782 (1994).

2002Generally, “a defendant is entitled to resentencing where a sentencing court fails to exercise its discretion because of a mistaken belief in the law.” People v Green, 205 Mich App 342, 346 ; 517 NW2d 782 (1994).