Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Deck v. Stategreen1 sentence2018It is the trial court’s unobjected-to error that is the subject of plain-error review.14 By contrast, the “ultimate determination” of an ineffective-assistance claim “is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel . . . .”15 There will no doubt be occasions when both standards are relevant; trial counsel’s deficient performance will often result in a trial court error, but the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require d | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Carlos Saro, United States of America v. Cornelio Cabrera-Baezgreen1 sentence2018It is the trial court’s unobjected-to error that is the subject of plain-error review.14 By contrast, the “ultimate determination” of an ineffective-assistance claim “is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel . . . .”15 There will no doubt be occasions when both standards are relevant; trial counsel’s deficient performance will often result in a trial court error, but the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Randolph
green
2 sentences2023By contrast, the ultimate determination of an ineffective-assistance claim is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel. [People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1, 10-11 ; 917 NW2d 249 (2018) (quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).] Here, we are reviewing only “the trial court’s unobjected-to error”—whether that error was plain and affected defendant’s substantial rights. 2023By contrast, the ultimate determination of an ineffective-assistance claim is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel. [People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1, 10-11 ; 917 NW2d 249 (2018) (quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).] Here, we are reviewing only “the trial court’s unobjected-to error”—whether that error was plain and affected defendant’s substantial rights. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Puckett v. United States
green
2 sentences2018It is the trial court’s unobjected-to error that is the subject of plain-error review.14 By contrast, the “ultimate determination” of an ineffective-assistance claim “is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel . . . .”15 There will no doubt be occasions when both standards are relevant; trial counsel’s deficient performance will often result in a trial court error, but the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require d 2018It is the trial court’s unobjected-to error that is the subject of plain-error review.14 By contrast, the “ultimate determination” of an ineffective-assistance claim “is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel . . . .”15 There will no doubt be occasions when both standards are relevant; trial counsel’s deficient performance will often result in a trial court error, but the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Frady
green
2 sentences2018It is the trial court’s unobjected-to error that is the subject of plain-error review.14 By contrast, the “ultimate determination” of an ineffective-assistance claim “is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel . . . .”15 There will no doubt be occasions when both standards are relevant; trial counsel’s deficient performance will often result in a trial court error, but the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require d 2018It is the trial court’s unobjected-to error that is the subject of plain-error review.14 By contrast, the “ultimate determination” of an ineffective-assistance claim “is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel . . . .”15 There will no doubt be occasions when both standards are relevant; trial counsel’s deficient performance will often result in a trial court error, but the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Carines
green
2 sentences2018It is the trial court’s unobjected-to error that is the subject of plain-error review.14 By contrast, the “ultimate determination” of an ineffective-assistance claim “is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel . . . .”15 There will no doubt be occasions when both standards are relevant; trial counsel’s deficient performance will often result in a trial court error, but the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require d 2018It is the trial court’s unobjected-to error that is the subject of plain-error review.14 By contrast, the “ultimate determination” of an ineffective-assistance claim “is not the propriety of the trial court’s actions with regard to an alleged error, but whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel . . . .”15 There will no doubt be occasions when both standards are relevant; trial counsel’s deficient performance will often result in a trial court error, but the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Knott
green
2 sentences1988Although this unobjected-to error could not have prejudiced defendant and does not require reversal, People v Knott, 59 Mich App 105, 116 ; 228 NW2d 838 (1975), we will review defendant’s claims that his acts could not have been the proximate cause of Berry’s death in light of a proper characterization of his manslaughter conviction. 1988Although this unobjected-to error could not have prejudiced defendant and does not require reversal, People v Knott, 59 Mich App 105, 116 ; 228 NW2d 838 (1975), we will review defendant’s claims that his acts could not have been the proximate cause of Berry’s death in light of a proper characterization of his manslaughter conviction. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Wilder
green
2 sentences1979The dissent in People v Wilder, 82 Mich App 358 ; 266 NW2d 847 (1978), is distinguishable where, in view of the testimony presented, the unobjected-to error could not be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 1979The dissent in People v Wilder, 82 Mich App 358 ; 266 NW2d 847 (1978), is distinguishable where, in view of the testimony presented, the unobjected-to error could not be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Reed
green
2 sentences1977In People v Reed, 393 Mich 342, 349 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975), we attested to our belief that the right of the jury to determine all elements of the offense is fundamental: "Once a plea of not guilty is entered, the defendant 'has an absolute right to a jury determination upon all essential elements of the offense. * * * [Furthermore, in a situation wherein an understandingly tendered waiver is not forthcoming from the defendant, under no circumstances may the trial court usurp this right by ruling as a matter of law on an essential element of the crime charged.’ United States v England, 347 F2d 4 1977In People v Reed, 393 Mich 342, 349 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975), we attested to our belief that the right of the jury to determine all elements of the offense is fundamental: "Once a plea of not guilty is entered, the defendant 'has an absolute right to a jury determination upon all essential elements of the offense. * * * [Furthermore, in a situation wherein an understandingly tendered waiver is not forthcoming from the defendant, under no circumstances may the trial court usurp this right by ruling as a matter of law on an essential element of the crime charged.’ United States v England, 347 F2d 4 | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Cain
green
2 sentences1977People v Cain, 67 Mich App 433 ; 241 NW2d 233 (1976). 1977People v Cain, 67 Mich App 433 ; 241 NW2d 233 (1976). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Dorrikas
green
2 sentences1976People v Dorrikas, 354 Mich 303 ; 92 NW2d 305 (1958). 1976People v Dorrikas, 354 Mich 303 ; 92 NW2d 305 (1958). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.