Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 770 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 770.2 (2026)

Motion for new trial.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


770.2 Motion for new trial.

Sec. 2.

    (1) Except as provided in section 16, in a case appealable as of right to the court of appeals, a motion for a new trial shall be made within 60 days after entry of the judgment or within any further time allowed by the trial court during the 60-day period.

    (2) In a misdemeanor or ordinance violation case appealable as of right from a municipal court in a city that adopts a resolution of approval under section 23a of the Michigan uniform municipal court act, 1956 PA 5, MCL 730.523a, or from a court of record to the circuit court, a motion for a new trial shall be made within 20 days after entry of the judgment.

    (3) In a misdemeanor or ordinance violation case appealable de novo to the circuit court, a motion for a new trial shall be made within 20 days after entry of the judgment.

    (4) If the applicable period of time prescribed in subsection (1) or (2) has expired, a court of record may grant a motion for a new trial for good cause shown. If the applicable time period prescribed in subsection (3) has expired and the defendant has not appealed, a municipal court may grant a motion for new trial for good cause shown.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17356 ;-- CL 1948, 770.2 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 22, 1981 ;-- Am. 1981, Act 205, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 407, Eff. Jan. 1, 1999 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 402, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 2001

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1968–2019 · leading case: People v. Walker, 407 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Walker, 407 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. 1987). “204(A)(2)(b) and MCL 770.2; MSA 28.1099. 15 If a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere and later flies a motion to withdraw the plea pursuant to MCR 6.”
Robert Elmore v. Dale Foltz, 768 F.2d 773 (6th Cir. 1985). “The state points out that Elmore could still seek relief by filing a motion for a new trial, pursuant to Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 770.2(4). That is true, but irrelevant.”
People v. Thomas, 160 N.W.2d 382 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “” CL 1948, § 770.2 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1099). True, the statutory time allowing motion for new trial as a matter of right has passed.”
People v. McCoy, 446 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “204(A)(2)(b) and MCL 770.2; MSA 28.1099. The cited statute states that, generally, a motion for new trial must be filed within sixty days after entry of judgment.”
People v. Holbrook, 231 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “2, for the time limit when in fact MCLA 770.2; MSA 28.1099 controls. In finality we conclude it was the trial judge who either intentionally or arbitrarily caused the 180-day rule to be violated.”
People of Michigan v. Lorinda Irene Swain, No. 314564 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2014). · cites it 2× “See MCL 770.2(1). Because of this fact, defendant is now limited to the relief available through MCR 6.”
People of Michigan v. Lorinda Irene Swain, No. 314564 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2015). · cites it 2× “See MCL 770.2(1). Because of this fact, defendant is now limited to the relief available through MCR 6.”
People of Michigan v. Damitrice Deshawn Vann, No. 338742 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2019). “”); see also MCL 770.2(4) (requiring a showing of “good cause” for an untimely motion for a new trial).”
People v. Jackson, 187 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “The defendant contends that he was precluded from filing a motion for new trial in the lower court because of the requirement contained in MCLA § 770.2 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1099), “motions for new trials shall be made within 30 days after verdict”.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 770.2(1): 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Lorinda Irene Swain, No. 314564 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2014). “See MCL 770.2(1). Because of this fact, defendant is now limited to the relief available through MCR 6.”
People of Michigan v. Lorinda Irene Swain, No. 314564 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2015). “See MCL 770.2(1). Because of this fact, defendant is now limited to the relief available through MCR 6.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 770.2(4): 4 cases
Robert Elmore v. Dale Foltz, 768 F.2d 773 (6th Cir. 1985). “The state points out that Elmore could still seek relief by filing a motion for a new trial, pursuant to Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 770.2(4). That is true, but irrelevant.”
People of Michigan v. Damitrice Deshawn Vann, No. 338742 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2019). “”); see also MCL 770.2(4) (requiring a showing of “good cause” for an untimely motion for a new trial).”
People of Michigan v. Lorinda Irene Swain, No. 314564 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2014). “See MCL 770.2(1). Because of this fact, defendant is now limited to the relief available through MCR 6.”
People of Michigan v. Lorinda Irene Swain, No. 314564 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2015). “See MCL 770.2(1). Because of this fact, defendant is now limited to the relief available through MCR 6.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.