PEOPLE OF MI V SHON R TAYLOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 25, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 240290
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 01-001355-FH
v
SHON RAPHEL TAYLOR, a/k/a ERIC
FREEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted the trial court’s postconviction order denying his
motion for production of transcripts at public expense. We reverse and remand for entry of an
order granting the motion. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Defendant was convicted by a jury of delivery of less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL
333.7401(2)(a)(iv).1 The trial court determined that defendant was indigent, appointed counsel
to represent him, and ordered the production of trial and sentencing transcripts.
A person who is not related to defendant retained counsel to represent defendant on
appeal. Retained counsel moved for an order of substitution of counsel and for production of
transcripts at public expense. The motion was supported by defendant’s affidavit of indigency.
At a hearing the trial court seemed to conclude that defendant had not approved the substitution
of attorneys and that he might no longer be indigent. The trial court indicated that it needed
more information, but did not specify what additional information it deemed necessary. The trial
court entered an order for substitution of counsel, but denied the motion for production of
transcripts at public expense.
An indigent defendant who wishes to pursue an appeal of right is entitled to production of
transcripts at public expense. MCR 6.433(A). We review a trial court’s decision to grant a
defendant’s motion for production of transcripts at public expense for an abuse of discretion.
1
Defendant claimed an appeal from his conviction. That appeal is pending before this Court
(Docket No. 238753).
-1-
Const 1963, art 1, § 20; People v Cross, 30 Mich App 326, 336; 186 NW2d 398 (1971), aff’d
386 Mich 237; 191 NW2d 321 (1971).
We reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for production of
transcripts at public expense, and remand for entry of an order granting the motion. Indigency is
determined on a case-by-case basis, and must be determined by consideration of the defendant’s
financial ability, not that of his family and friends. MCR 6.005(B); People v Arquette, 202 Mich
App 227, 230; 507 NW2d 824 (1993). The trial court had sufficient information before it to
grant defendant’s motion. Counsel was retained by a person not related to defendant. That fact
had no bearing on defendant’s indigent status. Id. Defendant’s motion was accompanied by an
affidavit of indigency. The trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for production of
transcripts at public expense. Cross, supra; Arquette, supra, 230-231.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion for production
of transcripts at public expense. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
