Motion for relief from judgment; MCR 6.502; Successive motion for relief from judgment based on a retroactive change in law; MCR 6.502(G)(2)(a); People v Comer; People v Nunez; Good cause & actual prejudice; MCR 6.508(D)(3); Modification of a judgment of sentence (JOS); MCR 6.429; MCR 6.435; Correction of a clerical error; MCR 6.435(A); Life without the possibility of parole (LWOP)

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment. In 1978, he was convicted of first-degree murder and felony-firearm for his role in the armed robbery of an elderly couple that resulted in the death of one of the victims. The trial court sentenced him to LWOP for the former and two years for the latter. It entered an amended JOS in 2017 and again in 2018. It then denied defendant’s motion for relief from the second amended JOS. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion as the entry of that JOS violated MCR 6.429(A) and his right to be heard. He “argued in this case that the trial court’s second amended [JOS]—which purportedly corrected an invalid sentence set forth in the first amended [JOS]—was improperly entered and he was entitled relief. But, as the trial court noted, in this case—unlike in the Comer case—the predecessor trial court did not actually make a mistake in sentencing defendant that it corrected by entering the first amended judgment; rather, [it] merely was attempting to correct what it believed—wrongly—was a clerical error on the face of the original order of conviction and sentence that had been entered almost 40 years before. When that error was discovered, a second amended” JOS was entered. MCR 6.435(A) permitted it to amend the JOS to correct this clerical error. The trial court denied his motion on this basis, and it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The court noted that the trial court did not err by finding that defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and that the original order of conviction and sentence was valid as these findings had ample support in the record. And “as the trial court noted, the amendment itself was a clerical error.” Further, the “predecessor trial court was permitted to correct the clerical mistakes when they were identified and without providing notice to defendant,” meaning his “argument that the entry of the second amended [JOS] violated MCR 6.429(A) and MCR 6.435” was meritless. “It follows, then, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for relief from judgment.” Although there were “irregularities in this case, particularly the erroneous entry of a first amended [JOS], defendant did not carry his burden of establishing that he was entitled to the relief requested.” Affirmed.