Motion for relief from judgment; Good cause; MCR 6.508(D)(3)(a); “Actual prejudice”; MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b) & (b)(ii); Good cause waiver; Actual innocence; MCR 6.580(D)(3); Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; People v Reed; Admissibility & reliability of the victim’s identification; Comparing People v Thew; Whether an eyewitness identification had an independent basis; People v Gray; Actual prejudice; People v White

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-Romero’s motion for relief from judgment. He pled no contest to home invasion and AWIGBH for assaulting the victim at a house party. The trial court sentenced him as a third-offense habitual offender to 15 to 40 years for the home invasion conviction and 10 to 20 for the AWIGBH conviction. In his first appeal, the court denied leave. The trial court then denied his motion for relief from judgment. In his present appeal, the court rejected his argument that the good cause requirement should be waived because the victim’s single photo identification of him was unreliable, leading to the possibility he is actually innocent. It noted Romero “did not sufficiently prove there was a significant possibility he was innocent.” The court also rejected his claim that good cause existed because his original appellate counsel was ineffective. “We know from present appellate counsel’s own affidavit, as well as Romero’s, that original appellate counsel shared at least some of the evidentiary landscape with [him] and the risks and rewards of a plea withdrawal. That is further supported by the plea transcript, where Romero answered affirmatively questions about understanding the rights he was forgoing and the consequences he faced.” In addition, “we know that the risk/reward calculus of plea withdrawal remains unchanged in many respects in the event that [the victim’s] identification was inadmissible because there were other ways in which Romero could have been identified, including both video evidence and additional eyewitness identification.” Given the record, “we find no avenue in which, even with further development of the record, Romero can demonstrate that it is ‘manifestly unjust to allow the conviction to stand.’” Affirmed.