Case Name: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Emmell MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2018-12-21
Citations: 920 N.W.2d 581
Docket Number: SC: 158246; COA: 342377
Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Antonio Emmell MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 920
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Antonio Emmell MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.
SC: 158246
COA: 342377
Supreme Court of Michigan.
December 21, 2018
Order

Opinion:
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 5, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for the appointment of substitute appellate counsel, in light of Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 125 S.Ct. 2582, 162 L.Ed.2d 552 (2005). Even though defendant's original appellate counsel represented in his motion to vacate the order appointing him that there were no valid grounds for withdrawal of defendant's plea, he did not accompany this motion with a brief "referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal," there is no evidence that defendant was served with counsel's motion and given time "to raise any points that he chooses," and the trial court did not make a finding that the appeal was "wholly frivolous." Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). On remand, substitute appellate counsel, once appointed, may file an application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals for consideration under the standard for direct appeals, and/or any appropriate post-conviction motions in the circuit court, within six months of the date of the circuit court's order appointing counsel. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.