Title: PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID A WALTERS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 117495
State: Michigan
Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court
Date: May 1, 2001

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________ 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 48909 
C hief Justice 
Justices 
Maura D. Corrigan  
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED MAY 1, 2001  
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,  
Plaintiff-Appellant,  
v  
No. 117495  
DAVID A. WALTERS,  
Defendant-Appellee.  
PER CURIAM  
The defendant, through retained counsel, filed a motion  
for relief from judgment under MCR subchapter 6.500.  After  
the circuit court denied the motion and a motion for  
reconsideration, counsel filed an application for leave to  
appeal, but it was denied as untimely.  On rehearing, however,  
Court of Appeals remanded for a hearing on whether the  
untimeliness was the result of ineffective assistance of  
counsel.  We conclude that because the defendant had no right  
 
to counsel in proceedings under subchapter 6.500, the  
defendant 
cannot 
claim 
constitutionally 
ineffective 
assistance  
of counsel in these circumstances.  
I  
In 1992, the defendant was convicted by a jury of  
conspiracy to deliver and delivery of more than 650 grams of  
cocaine1 and received a life sentence on each conviction.  The  
Court of Appeals affirmed,2 and we denied leave to appeal.3  
In November 1998, retained counsel filed a motion for  
relief from judgment on behalf of the defendant.  The circuit  
judge denied it with an order entered January 6, 1999.  
Counsel filed a motion for reconsideration on January 26,  
1999, but there was delay in deciding the motion, and it was  
not until January 6, 2000, that the court issued an order  
denying it.  
On March 9, 2000, counsel filed a delayed application for  
leave to appeal with the Court of Appeals. 
The Court  
initially dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction  
because the application was not filed within twelve months of  
the January 6, 1999, order denying the motion for postjudgment  
relief.  The Court of Appeals order cited MCR 7.205(F)(3) and  
1 
 MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1). 
MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(i); 
MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(i).  
2  Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued May 3, 1996 
(Docket No. 169513).  
3 456 Mich 856 (1997).  
2  
People v Sconious, 448 Mich 643; 532 NW2d 840 (1995).  
Counsel 
then 
filed a motion for rehearing, accompanied by  
an affidavit explaining that he was unaware of the holding in  
Sconious, that he had advised the defendant not to file his  
application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals until  
after the trial court decided the motion for reconsideration,  
and that he failed to advise the defendant that the  
application to the Court of Appeals must be filed within  
twelve months of the trial court’s decision denying the motion  
for relief from judgment.  
The Court of Appeals issued an order remanding to the  
trial 
court 
for 
further 
proceedings, 
while 
retaining  
jurisdiction.  Among other things, the order directed the  
trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, “limited to  
defendant’s claim that his failure to timely seek appellate  
review was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel. See  
People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).”  The  
Court 
of 
Appeals 
denied the prosecutor’s motion for rehearing,  
and the prosecutor has filed an application for leave to  
appeal to this Court.  
II  
The Court of Appeals remand order directing the circuit  
court to consider whether the defendant received effective  
assistance of counsel presupposes that there is a right to  
effective 
assistance 
in 
a 
proceeding 
under  
MCR subchapter 6.500.  In a series of cases, the United States  
3  
Supreme Court has considered the question of the right to  
effective 
assistance 
in 
postconviction 
remedy 
proceedings. 
 
As  
the Court explained in Coleman v Thompson, 501 US 722,  
752-753; 111 S Ct 2546; 115 L Ed 2d 640 (1991):  
There is no constitutional right to an  
attorney in state post-conviction proceedings. 
Pennsylvania v Finley, 481 US 551; 107 S Ct 1990; 
95 L Ed 2d 539 (1987); Murray v Giarratano, 492 US 
1; 109 S Ct 2765; 106 L Ed 2d 1 (1989) (applying 
the rule to capital cases).  Consequently, a  
petitioner 
cannot 
claim 
constitutionally  
ineffective 
assistance 
of 
counsel 
in 
such  
proceedings.  See Wainwright v Torna, 455 US 586; 
102 S Ct 1300; 71 L Ed 2d 475 (1982) (where there 
is no constitutional right to counsel there can be 
no deprivation of effective assistance).  Coleman  
contends that it was his attorney’s error that led 
to the late filing of his state habeas appeal. 
This error cannot be constitutionally ineffective; 
therefore Coleman must “bear the risk of attorney 
error that results in a procedural default.”  
Wainwright v Torna, supra, is particularly applicable.  
There, on direct appeal of his state convictions, the Florida  
Supreme Court dismissed on the ground that the application was  
not timely filed. The defendant sought habeas corpus relief  
in the federal courts, claiming that he had been denied his  
right to effective assistance of counsel by the failure of his  
retained counsel to timely file the application to the Florida  
Supreme Court. The U.S. District Court denied the petition,  
but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed.4  
The U.S. Supreme Court in turn reversed, denying habeas corpus  
relief. The Court explained:  
4 649 F2d 290 (CA 5, 1981).  
4  
 
 
__________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________ 
 
In Ross v Moffitt, 417 US 600; 94 S Ct 2437; 
41 L Ed 2d 341 (1974), this Court held that a 
criminal defendant does not have a constitutional  
right to counsel to pursue discretionary state 
appeals or applications for review in this Court. 
Respondent does not contest the finding of the 
District Court that he had no absolute right to 
appeal his convictions to the Florida Supreme 
Court.
 Since respondent had no constitutional 
right to counsel, he could not be deprived of the 
effective assistance of counsel by his retained 
counsel’s failure to file the application timely.4  
[455 US 587-588.]  
4 Respondent was not denied due process of law 
by the fact that counsel deprived  him of his right 
to petition the Florida Supreme Court for review. 
Such deprivation—even if implicating a due process 
interest—was caused by his counsel, and not by the 
State.
 Certainly, the actions of the Florida  
Supreme Court in dismissing an application for 
review that was not filed timely did not deprive 
respondent of due process of law.  
This 
Court 
has 
repeatedly recognized that Const 1963, art  
1, § 20, affords no greater rights than the Sixth Amendment  
with respect to the right to appointed counsel.  See, e.g.,  
People v Reichenbach, 459 Mich 109, 119-120; 587 NW2d 1  
(1998).  Therefore, we conclude, in accordance with Coleman  
and Wainright, 
that, 
because a defendant has no constitutional  
right to appointed counsel in filing a motion for relief from  
judgment under subchapter 6.500 of the Michigan Court Rules,  
a 
defendant 
cannot 
claim 
constitutionally 
ineffective  
assistance of counsel by counsel’s failure timely to file an  
application for leave to appeal from the denial of such a  
motion.  
III  
5  
 
 
 
 
The existence of the right to effective assistance of  
counsel is the premise underlying the Court of Appeals remand  
order.
 Since the defendant had no such right in this  
proceeding, the Court of Appeals order of June 20, 2000, is  
reversed and its dismissal order dated March 24, 2000, is  
reinstated.  
CORRIGAN, C.J., and WEAVER, TAYLOR, YOUNG, and MARKMAN, JJ.,  
concurred.  
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ.  We would not dispose of this  
case by opinion per curiam, but would deny leave to appeal.  
6