Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restoration Of Appellate Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Appellate Defender Office urges court to drop time limits on restoration of appellate rights
Summary
At a May 2025 hearing, the State Appellate Defender Office urged the Michigan Supreme Court not to adopt time limits for requests to restore appellate rights in criminal and juvenile cases, saying timelines would reduce access and that past restorations after long delays produced relief.
Josh Pease, representing the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO), told the Michigan Supreme Court at a May 2025 public hearing that proposed timelines for restoring appellate rights in criminal and juvenile cases would undermine access to justice for people who face barriers to filing within strict deadlines. Pease urged the court to adopt an earlier draft of the ADM that would have expanded restoration procedures without imposing new time bars.
Pease said delay in asserting appellate rights can stem from many causes: inaction by appellate counsel, postal problems in correctional settings, cognitive or developmental disabilities, or clerical errors at trial courts. He cited multiple individuals whose appellate rights were restored more than two years after the appellate period had expired — examples included two named cases that were dismissed following restoration and at least one case leading to a substantial sentence reduction — and said those outcomes demonstrate the public interest in flexible restoration procedures.
A justice asked whether jurisdictional questions arise when juveniles age out of the system before a restoration request is resolved. Pease said he believes the juvenile court that adjudicated the child would remain the appropriate forum but acknowledged that the precise procedure “hasn’t been explored yet.”
When asked whether a presumptive timeline with exceptions would be acceptable, Pease said personally he would find a 2‑year presumptive period with case‑by‑case exceptions reasonable, but he did not speak for SADO on that point. The court made no decision at the hearing.
The item under consideration would amend MCR 3.993 and 6.428 to address restoration of appellate rights in juvenile and criminal cases. Commenters and the court discussed balancing timely finality with the consequences of denying late restoration petitions that may be caused by systemic barriers in prisons or by attorney error.
