PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID ROBERTS

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID ROBERTS
Docket No. 380543
LC No. 17-008393-01-FC
Michael F. Gadola
Presiding Judge
Stephen L. Borrello
Michael J. Riordan
Judges
The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only.
The delayed application for leave to appeal is DENIED because defendant has failed to
establish that the trial court erred in denying the successive motion for relief from judgment. Defendant’s
initial motion raised a double-jeopardy claim, asserting that he could not be convicted of multiple counts
of felony-firearm arising from a single overall incident. This argument is not based on an exception to
the prohibition against successive motions for relief from judgment stated in MCR 6.502(G). While
defendant asserts it is “jurisdictional,” and thus may be raised in a successive motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to People v Washington, 508 Mich 107, 131-132; 972 NW2d 767 (2021), we disagree.
Washington recognizes that a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised in a successive motion for
relief from judgment. But defendant’s claim does not concern the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
See People v Winburn, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (July 11, 2025) (Docket No. 369323), pp 6-8
(a double-jeopardy claim, which is not based on a claim of new evidence, a retroactive change in the law,
or a sentence having been vacated, does not survive the procedural bar of MCR 6.502(G)). See also
Washington, 508 Mich at 121 (a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction “concerns a court’s authority to hear
and determine a case,” and does not depend on the particular facts of the case, but instead, “is dependent
on the character or class of the case pending”). In any event, defendant’s claim would also fail on the
merits. A defendant can be convicted of multiple counts of felony-firearm arising from a single transaction
so long as each such conviction is supported by a separate underlying felony. People v Morton, 423 Mich
650, 656; 377 NW2d 798 (1985). Defendant was convicted of both felonious assault and felon-in-
possession, and attached to each of those felonies are separate counts of felony-firearm. There is no
double-jeopardy violation.
The trial court also failed to rule on defendant’s motion to supplement or amend his motion,
in which he sought to raise additional double-jeopardy claims. While the trial court should have addressed
that motion, we have reviewed the double-jeopardy claims defendant sought to raise, and they are
meritless. These claims also do not appear to survive MCR 6.502(G)’s procedural bar against successive
motions for relief from judgment. And regardless, defendant can undoubtedly be charged and convicted
of multiple offenses arising from a single overall “incident,” as occurred in this case. That defendant
committed multiple crimes in close temporal proximity to one another does not mean that he cannot be
charged with, or convicted of, all of them. See People v Miller, 498 Mich 13, 19; 869 NW2d 204 (2015)
(a defendant may be convicted of multiple crimes arising from the same offense if expressly authorized
by the Legislature, or if each offense has an element that the other does not). Further, the fact that
defendant was acquitted of armed robbery and the one count of felony-firearm charged in connection with

-- 1 of 2 --

that count of armed robbery does not mean he could not be convicted of any other offense arising from
the same overall incident. The offenses for which defendant stands convicted do not require that he have
committed armed robbery. The trial court reached the correct result by denying defendant’s successive
motion for relief from judgment.
______________________________
Presiding Judge

-- 2 of 2 --