ADM File No. 2023-11
Amendments of Rules 1.109, 2.412, 3.302, 3.716, 3.717, 3.718, 3.903, 3.965, 3.972, 4.002, 5.125, 5.501, 7.108, 7.205, 7.305, 9.125, 9.220, 9.315 of the Michigan Court Rules, Rule 1.17 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules 801, 803, 804, 1001, and 1102 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence
To read this file, visit https://perma.cc/N6HB-YC33.
ADM File No. 2022-46
Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.305 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 3.305 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 3.305 Mandamus
(A) Jurisdiction.
(1) Unless the constitution, a statute, or court rule requires aAn action for mandamus against a state officer to be brought in the Supreme Court, the action mustmay be brought in the Court of Appeals or the Court of Claims.
(2) [Unchanged.]
(B)-(G) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-46): The proposed amendment of MCR 3.305 would clarify where to file a mandamus action.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2024, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-46. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2021-05
Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and eleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 6.302 Pleas of Guilty and Nolo Contendere
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) An Accurate Plea.
(1) If the court engages in a preliminary evaluation of the sentence to be imposed, the court must:
(a) state that any sentencing range discussed at the plea hearing is a preliminary estimate and that the final sentencing range determined by the court may differ,
(b) advise the defendant whether they will be permitted to withdraw their plea if the preliminary estimate completed at the time of the evaluation is different than the final sentencing range determined by the court at sentencing, and
(c) include in the evaluation a numerically quantifiable sentence term or range. A quantifiable sentence range includes language such as “lower/upper half” or “lower/upper quarter.”
(1)-(2) [Renumbered (2)-(3) but otherwise unchanged.]
(E)-(F) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2021-05): The proposed amendment of MCR 6.302 would require a court that has engaged in a preliminary evaluation of the sentence to inform the defendant that the final sentencing range may differ from the original estimate and, if different, advise the defendant about whether they would be permitted to withdraw their plea, and include in the evaluation a numerically quantifiable sentence term or range.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2024, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2021-05. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-25
Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.103 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 7.103 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 7.103 Appellate Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and Judicial Authority
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) In courts with a concurrent jurisdiction plan, an appeal under this subchapter must be heard by a judge other than the judge that conducted the trial.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-25): The proposed amendment of MCR 7.103 would require that an appeal to circuit court be heard by a judge other than the judge that conducted the trial.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2024, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-25. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-12
Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.118 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 7.118 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover]
Rule 7.118 Appeals from the Michigan Parole Board
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Access to Reports and Guidelines. Upon request, the prosecutor, the victim, counsel for the prisoner, and the prisoner shall receive the parole eligibility report, any prior parole eligibility reports that are mentioned in the parole board’s decision, and any parole guidelines that support the action taken.
(D)-(E) [Unchanged.]
(F) Record on Appeal. The record on appeal shall consist of the prisoner’s central office file at the Department of Corrections and any other documents considered by the parole board in reaching its decision.
(1) Within 14 days of being served with a prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal, the parole board shall send copies of the record to the circuit court and the other parties.
(2) In all other appeals, within 14 days after being served with an order granting leave to appeal, the parole board shall send copies of the record to the circuit court and the other parties.
(3) The confidential portion of the parole board file, including victim information, shall be filed under seal and made available only to counsel for the parties and the court. The parole board shall provide a prisoner who is responding in propria persona with a copy of the confidential portion of the parole board file with any victim contact information redacted. The confidential portion of the parole board file shall not be otherwise distributed.
(4) Any of the prisoner’s medical, psychological, and treatment records that are part of the record on appeal shall be filed under seal and shall be made available only to counsel for the parties, a prisoner who is responding in propria persona, and the court. The prisoner’s medical, psychological, and treatment records shall not be otherwise distributed.
(5) In all other respects, the record on appeal shall be processed in compliance with MCR 7.109.
(F)-(G) [Relettered (G)-(H) but otherwise unchanged.]
(IH) Procedure After Leave to Appeal Granted. If leave to appeal is granted, MCR 7.105(E)(4) applies along with the following:
(1) Record on Appeal.
(a) The record on appeal shall consist of the prisoner’s central office file at the Department of Corrections and any other documents considered by the parole board in reaching its decision.
(b) Within 14 days after being served with an order granting leave to appeal, the parole board shall send copies of the record to the circuit court and the other parties. In all other respects, the record on appeal shall be processed in compliance with MCR 7.109.
(c) The expense of preparing and serving the record on appeal may be taxed as costs to a nonprevailing appellant, except that expenses may not be taxed to an indigent party.
(2)-(4) [Renumbered (1)-(3) but otherwise unchanged.]
(I)-(J) [Relettered (J)-(K) but otherwise unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-12): The proposed amendment of MCR 7.118 would allow the prisoner’s attorney access to the parole eligibility report(s) and guidelines, require MDOC to provide the record on appeal within 14 days of being served with a prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal the parole board’s decision, require in all other appeals that MDOC provide the record on appeal within 14 days of the court granting the application for leave to appeal, and require confidential portions of the record to be filed under seal with access limited to certain people.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2024, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-12. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2024-01
Appointment to the Court Reporting and Recording Board of Review
On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.108(G)(2)(a), Hon. Julie A. Gafkay, circuit court judge, is appointed to the Court Reporting and Recording Board of Review for a partial term beginning immediately and ending on March 31, 2025.
ADM File No. 2024-01
Appointments to the Michigan Judicial Council
On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.128 and effective immediately, the following members are appointed to the Michigan Judicial Council for the remainder of terms ending on Dec. 31, 2025:
• Charity Mason (court administrator)
• Nora Ryan (on behalf of Justice For All Commission)
ADM File No. 2024-01
Appointment to the Justice For All Commission
On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2021-1 and effective immediately, Nora Ryan, Michigan Legal Help interim managing attorney, will serve by virtue of that role on the Justice For All Commission.
Further, effective immediately, Nora Ryan is appointed as vice-chair of the Justice For All Commission for the remainder of a term ending on Dec. 31, 2025.