PEOPLE OF MI V CEDRIC LYNN WINDOM

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
PEOPLE OF MI V CEDRIC LYNN WINDOM
Docket No. 364516
LC No. 19-008287-01-FC
Michael F. Gadola
Presiding Judge
James Robert Redford
Michelle M. Rick
Judges
Defendant-Appellant’s motion to view oral argument from a correctional facility is DENIED.
“[A] defendant has a due process right to be present at a [criminal] proceeding ‘whenever his presence has
a relation, reasonably substantial, to the ful[l]ness of opportunity to defend against the charge. . . .’ ” United
States v Gagnon, 470 US 522, 526; 105 S Ct 1482; 84 L Ed 2d 486 (1985). That due-process right requires
the presence of the defendant at the trial, People v Powell, 303 Mich App 271, 275; 842 NW2d 538 (2013),
at the sentencing hearing, People v Palmerton, 200 Mich App 302, 303; 503 NW2d 663 (1993), and at every
other “critical stage” of the criminal proceedings. People v Hayes, 126 Mich App 721, 730; 337 NW2d 905
(1983). This Court has noted, “[i]n the abstract, almost any part of the criminal proceeding might arguably
be termed a critical stage.” People v Gasco, 104 Mich App 594, 597; 305 NW2d 552 (1981). But this Court
excepted “[o]ral argument before an appellate court” because “the attorney alone approaches the appellate
court[.]” Id. Thus, because a defendant has no constitutional, statutory, or rule-based right to observe oral
argument either virtually or in person when counsel presents the oral argument, see id., we have no basis to
order the officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to afford defendant the opportunity
to watch the oral argument in his case.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
December 12, 2025

-- 1 of 1 --