PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT JAMAR HALL

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT JAMAR HALL
Docket No. 378564
LC No. 11-000473-01-FC
Brock A. Swartzle
Presiding Judge
Thomas C. Cameron
Christopher M. Trebilcock
Judges
The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED in part, as follows. This Court’s order dated
April 14, 2026, is VACATED, and the delayed application for leave to appeal and motion to remand are
REINSTATED.
Defendant’s counsel, attorney Christopher Sinclair, is incorrect in asserting that “there is
[sic, are] no ‘relevant transcripts and pleadings’ for this Court to review,” nor any “testimonial record,”
merely because the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the disputed motion for relief from
judgment. As the appellant, defendant is responsible for providing the necessary record for this Court to
review his claims of error. See People v Elston, 462 Mich 751, 762; 614 NW2d 595 (2000). 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.”). And in
this case, that record includes—at minimum—the trial transcripts, the allegedly suppressed Brady1
material, and the allegedly “newly discovered” evidence. See People v Johnson, 502 Mich 541, 571; 918
NW2d 676 (2018) (holding that, to properly apply the Cress2 test, a court must review both “the evidence
presented at the original trial” and “the evidence that would be presented at a new trial”); People v
Thurmond, 348 Mich App 715, 738; 20 NW3d 311 (2023) (“To establish a Brady violation, a defendant
must show that (1) the prosecution has suppressed evidence; (2) that is favorable to the accused; and (3)
viewed in its totality, is material.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In this context, counsel’s
repeated failure to provide the necessary record is particularly troubling given that it could leave his client
with little or no recourse and potentially result in the client forfeiting an otherwise viable ground for relief
from judgment. See People v Walters, 463 Mich 717, 718; 624 NW2d 922 (2001) (“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”); Davila v Davis, 582 US 521, 524; 137 S Ct
2058; 198 L Ed 2d 603 (2017) (“a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to counsel in state
postconviction proceedings”).
1 Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83; 83 S Ct 1194; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).
2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678; 664 NW2d 174 (2003).

-- 1 of 2 --

Accordingly, defense counsel is DIRECTED to file, within 7 days of this order’s entry,
copies of all of the record materials that are necessary to facilitate appellate review. Failure to do so may
result in additional sanctions than those set forth below.
On the Court’s own motion pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(7), defendant’s counsel,
Christopher Sinclair (P80512), is assessed sanctions in the amount of $250 for his repeated failure
to provide the necessary record. Counsel shall pay those sanctions to the Clerk of this Court within 21
days of this order’s entry. Those sanctions are personal to the attorney and shall not be charged back
to the client.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge

-- 2 of 2 --