Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): test, and given that the issue has been forfeited, there is no reason to partially overrule Helzer in the case before us. II. CONCLUSION I concur with the majority that the order granting defendant a new trial should be vacated and that defendant’s conviction should be reinstated, although I reach this result on the ground that defendant forfeited his right to separately empaneled juries. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to partially overrule Helzer, which has served as precedent for more than 30 years in this state, because it is unnecessary to reach the issue whether Helzer was correctly decided. 1 MCL 750.335a (indecent exposure); MCL 767.61a (sexual delinquency). 2 See also Spencer v Texas, 385 US 554, 567-569; 87 S Ct 648; 17 L Ed 2d 606 (1967) (<HOLDING>). 3 Helzer, 404 Mich at 424. 4 People v 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no federal constitutional right to a bifurcated criminal trial (B) holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal (C) holding that there is no federal or colorado constitutional right to postconviction counsel but there is a limited statutory right (D) holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction (E) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right
Output (English): holding that there is no federal or colorado constitutional right to postconviction counsel but there is a limited statutory right