Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 780 / Act 620 of 1978
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.712 (2026)

Appellate defender commission; creation; appointment, qualifications, and terms of members; compensation and expenses; development of system of appellate defense services; development and adoption of minimum standards; roster of attorneys; appointment; continuing legal education training program.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

APPELLATE DEFENDER ACT


Act 620 of 1978


780.712 Appellate defender commission; creation; appointment, qualifications, and terms of members; compensation and expenses; development of system of appellate defense services; development and adoption of minimum standards; roster of attorneys; appointment; continuing legal education training program.

Sec. 2.

    (1) An appellate defender commission is created within the office of the state court administrator. The appellate defender commission consists of 9 members appointed by the governor for terms of 4 years. The members of the commission must be determined as follows:

    (a) Two members must be recommended by the supreme court of this state.

    (b) One member must be recommended by the court of appeals of this state.

    (c) One member must be recommended by the Michigan Judges Association.

    (d) Two members must be recommended by the State Bar of Michigan.

    (e) One member must be recommended by the Michigan Indian Judicial Association.

    (f) Two members who are not attorneys must be selected from the general public by the governor to represent the interests of individuals who have been impacted by the youth or adult justice system.

    (g) A member appointed to the commission under subdivisions (a) to (f) shall not be, at the time of appointment, a sitting judge, a prosecuting attorney, or a law enforcement officer.

    (2) Initially 4 members of the commission shall be appointed for terms of 4 years and 1 member each for terms of 1, 2, and 3 years respectively.

    (3) Members of the commission shall not receive a salary in that capacity but must be reimbursed for their reasonable actual and necessary expenses by the state treasurer upon the warrant of the state treasurer.

    (4) The commission shall be responsible for the development of both of the following:

    (a) A system of appellate defense services for indigent adults.

    (b) A system of appellate defense services for indigent youth.

    (5) Both of the systems described in subsection (4) must include services provided by both of the following:

    (a) The office of the state appellate defender created in section 3.

    (b) Locally appointed private counsel.

    (6) The commission shall be responsible for the development of minimum standards to which all indigent appellate defense services for adults and youth shall conform. Whenever the commission deems it advisable, the commission shall submit proposed standards to the supreme court. Upon approval of the proposed standards by the supreme court, the commission shall adopt the standards.

    (7) The commission shall compile and keep current both of the following:

    (a) A statewide roster of attorneys eligible for, and willing to accept, appointment to serve as appellate defense counsel for indigent adults.

    (b) A statewide roster of attorneys eligible for, and willing to accept, appointment to serve as appellate defense counsel for indigent youth.

    (8) The appointment of appellate defense services for indigent adults and youth must be made from the applicable roster described in subsection (7), or referred to the office of the state appellate defender.

    (9) The commission shall provide a continuing legal education training program for its staff and the private attorneys who appear on the rosters described in subsection (7).

    

    

History: 1978, Act 620, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 1979 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 299, Eff. Oct. 1, 2024

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Frederick v. Presque Isle Cnty. Circuit Judge, 476 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frederick v. Presque Isle Cnty. Circuit Judge, 476 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 26× “1255 to preclude the trial judge from appointing anyone but trial counsel, it might conflict with the principle that the trial court has inherent authority to compel an appropriation necessary to the performance of the statutory function mandated by MCL 780.712; MSA…”
People v. Reed, 535 N.W.2d 496 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “1981-7, pursuant to MCL 780.712; MSA 28.1114(102). Standard 9 provides: Counsel should assert claims of error which are supported by facts of record, which will benefit the defendant if successful, which possess arguable legal merit, and which should be recognizable by a…”
People v. Bass, 565 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 780.712; MSA 28.1114(102), MCL 780.713; MSA 28.”
People v. Bass, 581 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 780.712; M.S.A. § 28.1114(102), M.C.L. § 780.”
In re Frederick, 463 N.W.2d 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “MCL 780.712(6); MSA 28.1114(102)(6) provides that the appointment of appellate attorneys for indigents is to be made by the trial court either from the roster of eligible private attorneys, to be compiled by the Appellate Defender Commission, 2 or by referral to sapo.”
People of Michigan v. Tyronza Ray Bush (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “SELECTION OF APPELLATE COUNSEL Defendant next argues that his current appellate counsel was appointed in violation of MCL 780.712(6). Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Jay Weaver (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” When Strauss was appointed to represent him in April 2024, the Appellate Defender Act, MCL 780.712(6), provided that a trial court may appoint counsel from the appellate commission roster “or” refer the appointment to SADO.”
Proposed Regulations & Standards for Operation of an Appellate Assigned Couns. Sys., 409 Mich. 1103 (Mich. 1980). “Staff Comment: The appellate assigned counsel administrative design and standards were drafted by the Appellate Defender Commission, pursuant to MCL 780.712(4) and (5); MSA 28.1114(102X4) and (5), and are published for comment by the Court substantially as submitted.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.712(4) — 2 cases
Frederick v. Presque Isle Cnty. Circuit Judge, 476 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1991). “1255 to preclude the trial judge from appointing anyone but trial counsel, it might conflict with the principle that the trial court has inherent authority to compel an appropriation necessary to the performance of the statutory function mandated by MCL 780.712; MSA…”
Proposed Regulations & Standards for Operation of an Appellate Assigned Couns. Sys., 409 Mich. 1103 (Mich. 1980). “Staff Comment: The appellate assigned counsel administrative design and standards were drafted by the Appellate Defender Commission, pursuant to MCL 780.712(4) and (5); MSA 28.1114(102X4) and (5), and are published for comment by the Court substantially as submitted.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.712(6) — 4 cases
Frederick v. Presque Isle Cnty. Circuit Judge, 476 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1991). “1255 to preclude the trial judge from appointing anyone but trial counsel, it might conflict with the principle that the trial court has inherent authority to compel an appropriation necessary to the performance of the statutory function mandated by MCL 780.712; MSA…”
In re Frederick, 463 N.W.2d 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “MCL 780.712(6); MSA 28.1114(102)(6) provides that the appointment of appellate attorneys for indigents is to be made by the trial court either from the roster of eligible private attorneys, to be compiled by the Appellate Defender Commission, 2 or by referral to sapo.”
People of Michigan v. Tyronza Ray Bush (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “SELECTION OF APPELLATE COUNSEL Defendant next argues that his current appellate counsel was appointed in violation of MCL 780.712(6). Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Jay Weaver (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “” When Strauss was appointed to represent him in April 2024, the Appellate Defender Act, MCL 780.712(6), provided that a trial court may appoint counsel from the appellate commission roster “or” refer the appointment to SADO.”
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.