PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL THOMAS BEARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 24, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 283143
Hillsdale Circuit Court
LC No. 07-311275-FH
MICHAEL THOMAS BEARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and O’Connell and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense,
MCL 257.625(9)(c), and was sentenced to 23 to 60 months’ imprisonment. He appeals by
delayed leave granted from the circuit court order denying as untimely his request for the
appointment of appellate counsel to challenge his plea-based conviction. We affirm, but remand
for correction of defendant’s judgment of sentence.
Defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his request for the appointment
of appellate counsel presents a constitutional issue, which we review de novo. People v
McRunels, 237 Mich App 168, 171; 603 NW2d 95 (1999). After defendant was sentenced on
May 14, 2007, the trial court advised him that he could request the appointment of counsel to file
an application for leave to appeal by completing the appropriate documents and returning them
to the court within 42 days. He signed and dated the completed request portion of the form on
August 17, 2007, and returned it to the trial court, which denied the request and a second request
as untimely. See MCR 6.425(G)(1)(c). Defendant relies on Halbert v Michigan, 545 US 605,
610; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552 (2005), in support of his argument that he was entitled to
the appointment of counsel, but Halbert does not state or imply that procedural limits on the
exercise of constitutional rights are unenforceable. Unlike both Halbert and People v James, 272
Mich App 182, 195-198; 725 NW2d 71 (2006), at the time defendant entered his plea, the right
to appointment of counsel had been recognized by both federal and state courts. Defendant
properly was advised of that right, and how and when to exercise it. Because he failed to request
counsel within the prescribed 42-day period, the trial court was not required to appoint counsel.
MCR 6.425(G)(1)(c).
We note that although the judgment of sentence correctly indicates that defendant was
convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, it erroneously identifies the
relevant statutory citation as MCL 257.625(6)(d). That citation corresponds to a prior version of
-1-
the statute that did not exist at the time of defendant’s offense in December 2006. Consequently,
we remand for the ministerial purpose of correcting the judgment of sentence to reflect
defendant’s conviction pursuant to MCL 257.625(1) and (9)(c). MCR 6.435(A); MCR
7.216(A)(7).
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
