PEOPLE OF MI V WILLIAM EDWARD NEILLY

Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Megan K. Cavanagh,
Chief Justice
Brian K. Zahra
Richard H. Bernstein
Elizabeth M. Welch
Kyra H. Bolden
Kimberly A. Thomas
Noah P. Hood,
Justices
Order
June 18, 2026
SC: 165185
COA: 358043
Kalamazoo CC: 1993-000756-FC
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
WILLIAM EDWARD NEILLY,
Defendant-Appellant.
By order of January 26, 2026, the United States Supreme Court vacated this Court’s
July 8, 2024 judgment and remanded this case to this Court for further consideration in
light of Ellingburg v United States, 607 US 163 (2026). On order of the Court, the
application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeals
is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether, in light
of the decision in Ellingburg, restitution constitutes punishment for purposes of the Ex Post
Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution, US Const, art I, § 10, and the Michigan
Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 10; (2) whether application of the current versions of the
restitution statutes rather than the statutes in effect when defendant was convicted
“disadvantage[d]” him for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clauses, Weaver v Graham, 450
US 24, 29 (1981); see also People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 693 (2002); and (3) if there
is an Ex Post Facto Clause violation, what is the appropriate remedy? The time allowed
for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).
We further ORDER the Kalamazoo Circuit Court, in accordance with
Administrative Order 2003-03, to determine whether defendant is indigent and, if so, to
appoint the State Appellate Defender Office, if feasible, to represent defendant in this
Court. If this appointment is not feasible, the trial court shall, within the same time frame,
appoint other counsel to represent defendant in this Court. Defendant’s brief is due within
42 days after the date of the order appointing counsel or of the ruling that defendant is not
entitled to appointed counsel.

-- 1 of 2 --

I, Elizabeth Kingston-Miller, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 18, 2026
p0616
2
Clerk
Amici who previously appeared in this case are invited to file supplemental briefs
amicus curiae. The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan is invited to file a brief
amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues
presented in this case who are not exempt from the motion requirement under MCR
7.312(H) may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

-- 2 of 2 --