PEOPLE OF MI V BRYANT LAMONT ROYSTER

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
PEOPLE OF MI V BRYANT LAMONT ROYSTER
Docket No. 381385
LC No. 13-000935-02-FC
Philip P. Mariani
Presiding Judge
Christopher M. Murray
Brock A. Swartzle
Judges
The delayed application for leave to appeal is considered but remains pending. On the
Court’s own motion pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(9), defendant-appellant’s attorneys, Gabi D. Silver and
Phillip Comorski, are DIRECTED to furnish this Court with the necessary record to review the issues
raised here on the merits. See People v Elston, 462 Mich 751, 762; 614 NW2d 595 (2000) (noting that
appellants bear the burden of furnishing the necessary record to substantiate their claims of error). See
also MCR 7.205(E)(1) (“The application is decided on the documents filed . . . .”); IOP 7.205(B)(1) (“The
Court strongly recommends that the appellant file copies of relevant transcripts and pleadings because the
Court does not receive the lower court record when deciding applications for leave to appeal.”).
Specifically, that record includes all evidentiary exhibits that were presented to the trial court in support
of the disputed motion for relief from judgment—including the relevant affidavits—and the transcript of
defendant’s preliminary examination. Without such materials, it is impossible for this Court to properly
review the issues presented here. See MCR 6.508(D) (providing that defendant bears the burden of
establishing his entitlement to the relief requested here); People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 274; 815 NW2d
105 (2012) (holding that a party seeking a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence “carries
the burden of making the requisite showing regarding each of the four parts of the Cress[1] test”). Within
7 days of this order’s entry, attorneys Silver and Comorski shall file the necessary record in this Court.
Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions in addition to those imposed below.
We note that this is far from the first time that this Court has brought this same issue to
Comorski’s attention in an appeal involving a ruling on a motion filed under MCR subchapter 6.500.
Indeed, after having been admonished several times about the importance of furnishing this Court with
the necessary record in such cases—and that his failure to do so poses a risk of significant prejudice to his
clients in such matters, while also needlessly wasting limited judicial resources2—Comorski nevertheless
persisted in the same course of conduct and was thus “assessed sanctions in the amount of $250 for his
continued failure to provide the necessary record, despite multiple warnings from this Court about the
importance of doing so.” See People v Jackson, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April
1 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678; 664 NW2d 174 (2003).
2 See, e.g., People v Childs, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 18, 2025 (Docket
No. 373251); People v Snyder, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 20, 2026
(Docket No. 377544).

-- 1 of 2 --

3, 2026 (Docket No. 377786). Despite these sanctions, the same problem has once again recurred in this
case.
For those reasons, on the Court’s own motion pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(7), attorney
Phillip Comorski (P46413), is hereby ASSESSED SANCTIONS in the amount of $750. Counsel shall
pay those sanctions to the Clerk of this Court within 21 days of this order’s entry. The sanctions are
personal to the attorney and shall not be charged back to the client. On the other hand, while attorney
Gabi D. Silver (P36382) is not assessed any sanctions here, we caution her that repetition of this conduct
might well be viewed as sanctionable conduct in a future appeal.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
October 9, 2026
A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. , Chief Clerk, on
Date

-- 2 of 2 --