Ginther1 hearing in Michigan

2026People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181, 190 ; 774 NW2d 714 (2009). -2- To preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must raise the claim in a motion for a new trial or request for a Ginther1 hearing.

2026People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181, 190 ; 774 NW2d 714 (2009). -2- To preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must raise the claim in a motion for a new trial or request for a Ginther1 hearing.

2026Where, as here, “a defendant fails to “request a Ginther1 hearing or move for a new trial in the matter, this Court’s review is limited to mistakes apparent on the appellate record.” People v Foster, 319 Mich App 365 , 390; 901 NW2d 127 (2017). 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding

2026Where, as here, “a defendant fails to “request a Ginther1 hearing or move for a new trial in the matter, this Court’s review is limited to mistakes apparent on the appellate record.” People v Foster, 319 Mich App 365 , 390; 901 NW2d 127 (2017). 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding

2019People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 410 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008).

2019People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 410 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008).

2021To properly preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must move for either a new trial or a Ginther1 hearing in the trial court; failure to make any such motion “ordinarily precludes review of the issue unless the appellate record contains sufficient detail to support the defendant’s claim.” People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656 , 658- 659; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2021To properly preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must move for either a new trial or a Ginther1 hearing in the trial court; failure to make any such motion “ordinarily precludes review of the issue unless the appellate record contains sufficient detail to support the defendant’s claim.” People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656 , 658- 659; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2022Because the trial court did not hold a Ginther1 hearing, “our review is limited to the facts on the record.” People v Wilson, 242 Mich App 350, 352 ; 619 NW2d 413 (2000).

2022Because the trial court did not hold a Ginther1 hearing, “our review is limited to the facts on the record.” People v Wilson, 242 Mich App 350, 352 ; 619 NW2d 413 (2000).

2026In this case, a -2- Ginther1 hearing was not conducted, so “our review of the relevant facts is limited to mistakes apparent on the record.” People v Riley, 468 Mich 135, 139 ; 659 NW2d 611 (2003).

2026In this case, a -2- Ginther1 hearing was not conducted, so “our review of the relevant facts is limited to mistakes apparent on the record.” People v Riley, 468 Mich 135, 139 ; 659 NW2d 611 (2003).

2019People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 48 ; 687 NW2d 342 (2004).

2019People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 48 ; 687 NW2d 342 (2004).

2026Where, as here, “a defendant fails to “request a Ginther1 hearing or move for a new trial in the matter, this Court’s review is limited to mistakes apparent on the appellate record.” People v Foster, 319 Mich App 365 , 390; 901 NW2d 127 (2017). 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding

2026Where, as here, “a defendant fails to “request a Ginther1 hearing or move for a new trial in the matter, this Court’s review is limited to mistakes apparent on the appellate record.” People v Foster, 319 Mich App 365 , 390; 901 NW2d 127 (2017). 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding

2024Defendant’s ineffective-assistance argument is not preserved because defendant did not move for a new trial or evidentiary hearing in the trial court, see People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 80 ; 829 NW2d 266 (2012), or file a motion for remand for a -3- Ginther1 hearing in this Court, People v Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020).

2024Defendant’s ineffective-assistance argument is not preserved because defendant did not move for a new trial or evidentiary hearing in the trial court, see People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 80 ; 829 NW2d 266 (2012), or file a motion for remand for a -3- Ginther1 hearing in this Court, People v Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020).

2021Because defendant did not move the trial court for a new trial or a -2- Ginther1 hearing, People v Lopez, 305 Mich App 686, 693 ; 854 NW2d 205 (2014), our review is limited to errors apparent on the record, People v Hieu Van Hoang, 328 Mich App 45 , 63; 935 NW2d 396 (2019).2 “Both the Michigan and the United States Constitutions require that a criminal defendant enjoy the assistance of counsel for his or her defense.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012), citing Const 1963, art 1, § 20; US Const, Am VI.

2021Because defendant did not move the trial court for a new trial or a -2- Ginther1 hearing, People v Lopez, 305 Mich App 686, 693 ; 854 NW2d 205 (2014), our review is limited to errors apparent on the record, People v Hieu Van Hoang, 328 Mich App 45 , 63; 935 NW2d 396 (2019).2 “Both the Michigan and the United States Constitutions require that a criminal defendant enjoy the assistance of counsel for his or her defense.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012), citing Const 1963, art 1, § 20; US Const, Am VI.

2021Because defendant did not move the trial court for a new trial or a -2- Ginther1 hearing, People v Lopez, 305 Mich App 686, 693 ; 854 NW2d 205 (2014), our review is limited to errors apparent on the record, People v Hieu Van Hoang, 328 Mich App 45 , 63; 935 NW2d 396 (2019).2 “Both the Michigan and the United States Constitutions require that a criminal defendant enjoy the assistance of counsel for his or her defense.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012), citing Const 1963, art 1, § 20; US Const, Am VI.

2021Because defendant did not move the trial court for a new trial or a -2- Ginther1 hearing, People v Lopez, 305 Mich App 686, 693 ; 854 NW2d 205 (2014), our review is limited to errors apparent on the record, People v Hieu Van Hoang, 328 Mich App 45 , 63; 935 NW2d 396 (2019).2 “Both the Michigan and the United States Constitutions require that a criminal defendant enjoy the assistance of counsel for his or her defense.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012), citing Const 1963, art 1, § 20; US Const, Am VI.

2023When no Ginther1 hearing is held, as was the case here, “review is limited to errors apparent on the record.” People v Jordan, 275 Mich App 659, 712 ; 739 NW2d 706 (2007) (citation omitted).2 “This Court does not second-guess counsel on matters of trial strategy, nor does it assess counsel’s competence with the benefit of hindsight.” People v Traver (On Remand), 328 Mich App 418 , 422-423; 937 NW2d 398 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023When no Ginther1 hearing is held, as was the case here, “review is limited to errors apparent on the record.” People v Jordan, 275 Mich App 659, 712 ; 739 NW2d 706 (2007) (citation omitted).2 “This Court does not second-guess counsel on matters of trial strategy, nor does it assess counsel’s competence with the benefit of hindsight.” People v Traver (On Remand), 328 Mich App 418 , 422-423; 937 NW2d 398 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018We first note that these claims are unpreserved because defendant failed to raise them in a timely filed motion for a new trial, People v Wilson, 242 Mich App 350, 352 ; 619 NW2d 413 (2000) or move for a Ginther1 hearing, People v Hurst, 205 Mich App 634, 641 ; 517 NW2d 858 (1994).

2018We first note that these claims are unpreserved because defendant failed to raise them in a timely filed motion for a new trial, People v Wilson, 242 Mich App 350, 352 ; 619 NW2d 413 (2000) or move for a Ginther1 hearing, People v Hurst, 205 Mich App 634, 641 ; 517 NW2d 858 (1994).

2025To preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for appellate review, a defendant must move in the trial court for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing, People v Head, 323 Mich App 526, 538-539 ; 917 NW2d 752 (2018), or move in this Court to remand for a Ginther1 hearing, People v Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020).

2025To preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for appellate review, a defendant must move in the trial court for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing, People v Head, 323 Mich App 526, 538-539 ; 917 NW2d 752 (2018), or move in this Court to remand for a Ginther1 hearing, People v Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020).

2020Because no Ginther1 hearing was held, our review of this issue “is limited to errors apparent on the record.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 38 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008); see also People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181, 188 ; 774 NW2d 714 (2009).

2020Because no Ginther1 hearing was held, our review of this issue “is limited to errors apparent on the record.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 38 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008); see also People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181, 188 ; 774 NW2d 714 (2009).

2019People v Rodriguez, 251 Mich App 10, 38 ; 650 NW2d 96 (2002); People v Rodgers, 248 Mich App 702, 713-714 ; 645 NW2d 294 (2001).

2019People v Rodriguez, 251 Mich App 10, 38 ; 650 NW2d 96 (2002); People v Rodgers, 248 Mich App 702, 713-714 ; 645 NW2d 294 (2001).

2019See People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 716 ; 825 NW2d 623 (2012) (noting that decisions regarding the questioning of a witness are matters of trial strategy and that “[t]his Court does not second-guess counsel on matters of trial strategy, nor does it assess counsel’s competence with the benefit of hindsight”). -11- Finally, defendant argues that this Court should remand this case to the trial court for a Ginther1 hearing.

2019See People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 716 ; 825 NW2d 623 (2012) (noting that decisions regarding the questioning of a witness are matters of trial strategy and that “[t]his Court does not second-guess counsel on matters of trial strategy, nor does it assess counsel’s competence with the benefit of hindsight”). -11- Finally, defendant argues that this Court should remand this case to the trial court for a Ginther1 hearing.