Case Name: PEOPLE v. TUBBS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-09-22
Citations: 64 Mich. App. 341
Docket Number: Docket No. 17535
Parties: PEOPLE v TUBBS
Judges: Before: D. E. Holbrook, P. J., and Bronson and M. J. Kelly, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 64
Pages: 341–348

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v TUBBS
•Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Competency—Hearing—Evidence—New Trial— Statutes — Court Rules.
Failure to follow a statute or court rule respecting competency determination does not ipso facto entitle a defendant to a new trial; evidence substantiating incompetency-in-fact must establish that there is a violation of rights before a new trial will be ordered.
Concurrence by Bronson, J.
2. Appeal and Error — Claim of Appeal — Delayed Appeal — Court Rules.
Failure to file a claim of appeal within the applicable time terminates the right to appeal; the appellant must then resort to an application for leave to take a delayed appeal (GCR 1963, 802).
3. Appeal and Error — Appeal of Right — Time Limit — Final Judgment — Criminal Law — Court Rules.
A convicted defendant appealing a final judgment does not have an appeal as of right where the appeal was not filed within the 60-day jurisdictional time limit fixed by court rule (GCR 1963, 803.1)
4. Appeal and Error — Criminal Law — Competence—Courts—Jurisdiction — Habeas Corpus.
A defendant’s competence to stand trial goes to the heart of the validity of his conviction and the jurisdiction of the convicting court; such an issue properly comes before the Court of Appeals on appeal by leave granted in the nature of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, where an appeal as of right is no longer timely.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 32, 63.
Investigation of present sanity to determine whether accused should be put, or continue, on trial. 142 ALR 961.
[2, 3] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 20.
[4] 39 Am Jur 2d, Habeas Corpus § 60.
[5, 6] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 876.
5. Appeal and Error — Abandonment of Issue.
Failure to raise, argue or brief an issue constitutes abandonment of that issue and precludes further consideration of it.
6. Appeal and Error — Nonjurisdictional Error.
There should be but one opportunity to raise nonjurisdictional errors on appeal.
Appeal from Kent, George V. Boucher, J.
Submitted March 5, 1975, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 17535.)
Decided September 22, 1975.
Eugene Tubbs was convicted of second-degree murder. Defendant appealed. Affirmed, 22 Mich App 549 (1970). Defendant appeals by leave granted on issues not dealt with in the initial appeal.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, James K Miller, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Johnston III, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
Loeks, Buth, Wood & Weidow, for defendant.
Before: D. E. Holbrook, P. J., and Bronson and M. J. Kelly, JJ.

Opinion:
M. J. Kelly, J.
Rosie Hardges was killed on July 14, 1967. Defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, MCLA 750.317; MSA 28.549, on September 12, 1968. On appeal to this Court, his conviction was affirmed. People v Tubbs, 22 Mich App 549; 177 NW2d 622 (1970). Subsequently defendant, in propria persona, forwarded to this Court a "Motion for Peremptory Reversal" in which issues not dealt with in the initial appeal were raised. Treating the document as an application for leave to take a delayed appeal, we granted leave.
The people have continually asserted that since "defendant has had his day in court", we are without jurisdiction to consider issues which could have been, but were not, raised in the initial appeal. Suffice it to note that this precise argument has been twice rejected in the course of prior proceedings in this very case, once by our Supreme Court, People v Tubbs, 392 Mich 769 (1974). We do not reconsider it.
We have examined the allegations of error. All are without merit except the contention that the trial court erred in not conducting the competency hearing required by MCLA 767.27a(4); MSA 28.966(11)(4). Since the pertinent statutory provisions were enacted by 1966 PA 266, effective March 10, 1967, no retroactivity question is presented.
In the instant case, as in People v Lucas, 393 Mich 522; 227 NW2d 763 (1975), defendant was committed to the Department of Mental Health. As in Lucas, a report was filed with the trial court recommending that defendant be found competent to stand trial. As in Lucas, no competency hearing was held upon defendant's return to the committing court. The disposition of this case is governed by Lucas.
Defendant does not contend that he was in fact incompetent at the time of his trial. We quote the Lucas opinion:
"As we said in Blocker, supra, [People v Blocker, 393 Mich 501; 227 NW2d 767 (1975)] failure to follow a statute or court rule respecting competency determination does not ipso facto entitle a defendant to a new trial. Evidence substantiating incompetency-in-fact must establish that there is a violation of rights before a new trial will be ordered. Here, as in Blocker, no evidence of incompetence was adduced at trial and no offer of such evidence is now made." 393 Mich at 528.
We therefore adopt the Lucas remedy. The conviction is affirmed without prejudice to defendant's right to file a delayed motion for new trial if he wishes to claim incompetency.
D. E. Holbrook, P. J., concurred.