3.2 Motion for Relief From Judgment
“The defendant initiates proceedings under [ MCR 6.500 et seq .] by filing a motion for relief from judgment.” 1989 Staff Comment to MCR 6.502 . “[ MCR 6.502(C) ] spells out the required contents of the motion, which is to be in substantially the form approved by the State Court Administrator.” 1989 Staff Comment to MCR 6.502 .
Subject to exceptions discussed in Section 3.2(G), “[ MCR 6.502(G) ] limits criminal defendants to filing one motion for relief from judgment with respect to a conviction[.]” Staff Comment to 1995 Amendment of MCR 6.502 .
A. Nature of Motion
“The request for relief under [ MCR 6.500 et seq .] must be in the form of a motion to set aside or modify the judgment.” MCR 6.502(A) . “The motion must specify all of the grounds for relief which are available to the defendant and of which the defendant has, or by the exercise of due diligence, should have knowledge.” Id .
B. Limitations on Motion
“A motion may seek relief from one judgment only.” MCR 6.502(B) . To challenge the validity of additional judgments, the defendant must file separate motions. Id . “For the purpose of [ MCR 6.502 ], multiple convictions resulting from a single trial or plea proceeding shall be treated as a single judgment.” MCR 6.502(B) .
C. Form of Motion
“The motion may not be noticed for hearing, and must be typed or legibly handwritten and include a verification by the defendant or defendant’s lawyer in accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(3) .” MCR 6.502(C) .
“Except as otherwise ordered by the court, the combined length of the motion and any memorandum of law in support may not exceed 50 pages double-spaced, exclusive of attachments and exhibits.” MCR 6.502(C) . “If the court enters an order increasing the page limit for the motion, the same order shall indicate that the page limit for the prosecutor’s response provided for in MCR 6.506(A) is increased by the same amount.” MCR 6.502(C) .
“The motion must be substantially in the form approved by the State Court Administrative Office, and must include:
(1) The name of the defendant;
(2) The name of the court in which the defendant was convicted and the file number of the defendant’s case;
(3) The place where the defendant is confined, or, if not confined, the defendant’s current address;
(4) The offenses for which the defendant was convicted and sentenced;
(5) The date on which the defendant was sentenced;
(6) Whether the defendant was convicted by a jury, by a judge without [a] jury, or on a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill, or nolo contendere;
(7) The sentence imposed (probation, fine, and/or imprisonment), the length of the sentence imposed, and whether the defendant is now serving that sentence;
(8) The name of the judge who presided at trial and imposed sentence;
(9) The court, title, and file number of any proceeding (including appeals and federal court proceedings) instituted by the defendant to obtain relief from conviction or sentence, specifying whether a proceeding is pending or has been completed.
(10) The name of each lawyer who represented the defendant at any time after arrest, and the stage of the case at which each represented the defendant;
(11) The relief requested;
(12) The grounds for the relief requested;
(13) The facts supporting each ground, stated in summary form;
(14) Whether any of the grounds for the relief requested were raised before; if so, at what stage of the case, and, if not, the reasons they were not raised;
(15) Whether the defendant requests the appointment of counsel, and, if so, information necessary for the court to determine whether the defendant is entitled to appointment of counsel at public expense.” MCR 6.502(C) .
“Upon request, the clerk of each court with trial level jurisdiction over felony cases shall make available blank motion forms without charge to any person desiring to file such a motion.” MCR 6.502(C) .
D. Return of Insufficient Motion
“If a motion is not submitted on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office, or does not substantially comply with the requirements of these rules, the court shall either direct that it be returned to the defendant with a statement of the reasons for its return, along with the appropriate form, or adjudicate the motion under the provisions of these rules. The clerk of the court shall retain a copy of the motion.” MCR 6.502(D) . “Motions that do not substantially comply with the requirements of the court rules . . . may be returned to the defendant under certain conditions.” People v Harris , 500 Mich 874-875 (2016). However, “the court may not dismiss a defendant’s motion for relief from judgment merely for failure to comply with court rules; rather, the court must adjudicate the motion or return it ‘with a statement of reasons for its return.’” People v Gatiss , 486 Mich 960 (2010), quoting MCR 6.502(D) .
Pro se defendants. “When a pro se defendant files his or her first motion effectively seeking to set aside or modify the judgment but styles the motion as something other than a motion for relief from judgment, the court shall promptly notify the defendant of its intention to recharacterize the pleading as a motion for relief from judgment[.]” MCR 6.502(D) .
The court must also:
• inform the defendant of any effects the recharacterization might have on subsequent motions for relief (see MCR 6.502(B) and MCR 6.502(G)) ; and
• provide the defendant 90 days to withdraw or amend the motion before the court recharacterizes it. MCR 6.502(D) .
“If the court fails to provide this notice and opportunity for withdrawal or amendment, or the defendant establishes that notice was not actually received, the defendant’s motion cannot be considered a motion for relief from judgment for purposes of MCR 6.502(B) [and MCR 6.502](G) .” MCR 6.502(D) .
E. Attachments to Motion
“The defendant may attach to the motion any affidavit, document, or evidence to support the relief requested.” MCR 6.502(E) .
F. Amendment and Supplementation of Motion
“The court may permit the defendant to amend or supplement the motion at any time.” MCR 6.502(F) .
G. Successive Motions
“Except as provided in [ MCR 6.502(G)(2) ], regardless of whether a defendant has previously filed a motion for relief from judgment, after August 1, 1995, one and only one motion for relief from judgment may be filed with regard to a conviction.” MCR 6.502(G)(1) . See Ambrose v Recorder’s Court Judge , 459 Mich 884 (1998) (“[u]nder MCR 6.502(G)(1) , a criminal defendant may file one motion for relief from judgment after August 1, 1995, notwithstanding the defendant’s having filed one or more such motions before that date”).
“A defendant may file a second or subsequent motion based on any of the following:
(a) a retroactive change in law that occurred after the first motion for relief from judgment was filed,
(b) a claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first such motion was filed, or
(c) a final court order vacating one or more of the defendant’s convictions either described in the judgment from which the defendant is seeking relief or upon which the judgment was based.” MCR 6.502(G)(2) .
“The court may waive the provisions of this rule if it concludes that there is a significant possibility that the defendant is innocent of the crime.” Id. See also People v Owens , 338 Mich App 101, 114, 125 (2021) (noting that “before a trial court may consider a successive motion for relief from judgment, the defendant must make a threshold showing that the motion is brought on the basis of a retroactive change in law, that there is new evidence that was not discovered before the first motion, or that there is a significant possibility that the defendant is actually innocent”).
MCR 6.502(G) requires a preliminary showing for a successive motion for relief for judgment; MCR 6.508(D) is the court rule that addresses the defendant’s burden to establish entitlement to relief and “only becomes relevant after the defendant has made a preliminary showing under MCR 6.502(G) .” Owens , 338 Mich App at 115. Accordingly, after a defendant meets the MCR 6.502(G) threshold, he or she “may be entitled to relief from judgment if[, under MCR 6.508(D) ,] good cause and actual prejudice warrant granting relief.” Id . at 114-115. See Section 3.8(C) for information on entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D) .
“The clerk shall refer a successive motion to the judge to whom the case is assigned for a determination whether the motion is within one of the exceptions.” MCR 6.502(G)(2) . In propria persona defendants are “entitled to an even greater degree of lenity and generosity in construing [their] pleadings than a lawyer would have been.” Owens , 338 Mich App at 117.
“For motions filed under both [ MCR 6.502(G)(1) and MCR 6.502(G)(2) ], the court shall enter an appropriate order disposing of the motion.” MCR 6.502(G)(2) .
“For purposes of [ MCR 6.502(G)(2)(b) ], ‘new evidence’ includes new scientific evidence.” MCR 6.502(G)(3) . New scientific evidence “includes, but is not limited to, shifts in science entailing changes: (a) in a field of scientific knowledge, including shifts in scientific consensus; (b) in a testifying expert’s own scientific knowledge and opinions; or (c) in a scientific method on which the relevant scientific evidence at trial was based.” Id .
Note that the Michigan Supreme Court has stated that People v Cress , 468 Mich 678 (2003), which sets out a test that must be satisfied in order for a defendant to be entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, does not apply “to an analysis of a successive motion filed pursuant to MCR 6.502(G)(2) [;] Cress does not apply to the procedural threshold of MCR 6.502(G)(2) , as the plain text of the court rule does not require that a defendant satisfy all elements of the test.” People v Swain , 499 Mich 920 (2016). See also People v Owens , 338 Mich App 101, 116 (2021) (holding that “ MCR 6.502(G) [does] not require defendant to meet his ultimate burden as part of his preliminary showing”).
Examples of new evidence:
• An order vacating a conviction after a trial can be new evidence for purposes of MCR 6.502(G) . Owens , 338 Mich App at 122 (noting that a change in scientific consensus occurring after trial can constitute new evidence, and the language of MCR 6.502(G)(3) does not limit new evidence to evidence that could have been admitted at trial).
• An affidavit not previously presented to the trial court. People v Wagle , 508 Mich 950 (2021) (remanding to the trial court for reconsideration of defendant’s motion for relief from judgment where the motion was based “in part” on an affidavit not previously presented because the affidavit constituted new evidence that was not discovered before the first motion for relief from judgment).
2. Retroactive Change in the Law
Rules that do not qualify as retroactive changes in the law:
• The rule from People v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358 (2015), 1 does not apply retroactively for purposes of collateral review under MCR 6.500 (motion for relief from judgment). People v Barnes , 502 Mich 265, 268 (2018).
• An order from a federal court granting habeas relief does not constitute a retroactive change in the law under MCR 6.502(G) ; “a retroactive change in the law under MCR 6.502(G) can only be the retroactive change in a law of general application, not a change in the law of a defendant’s case.” People v Owens , 338 Mich App 101, 118 (2021).
• “[R]etroactive application of Beck on collateral review is not warranted under either the federal or Michigan frameworks.” People v Motten , ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024). In People v Beck , 504 Mich 605 (2019), the Michigan Supreme Court “concluded that reliance on acquitted conduct at sentencing violates due process . . . .” Motten , ___ Mich App at ___. “ Beck , like Lockridge , concerns an issue applicable during the sentencing process only.” Motten , ___ Mich App at ___.
Rules that do qualify as retroactive changes in the law:
• A motion for relief from judgment based on the holdings in Miller and Montgomery [ 2 ] satisfy the procedural requirement in MCR 6.502(G)(2) ; specifically, where Miller and Montgomery serve “as a ‘foundation’ or ‘base’ for a defendant’s claim” the motion overcomes the procedural bar in MCR 6.502(G)(2) . People v Stovall , 510 Mich 301, 310 (2022). “Reading the rule more narrowly to require that the defendant’s claims fall squarely within a retroactive change in law would effectively merge the procedural hurdle in MCR 6.502(G)(2) with the merits inquiry in MCR 6.508(D) , rendering one of those provisions nugatory.” Stovall , 510 Mich at 310. See also People v Poole , 510 Mich 851 (2022) (holding the successive motion was based on a retroactive change in the law where the defendant argued that Miller’s protections should be “extended to 18-year-old offenders, Miller and Montgomery serve as the ‘foundation’ or ‘base’ for defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of his mandatory life-without-parole sentence”); People v Poole , ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024) (finding the defendant met the requirement for a successive motion for relief from judgment and further satisfied the good cause and actual prejudice factors on the basis of the substantive rule announced in People v Parks 3 where the defendant was an 18-year-old in 2001 when he committed the acts that resulted in a conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of life without the possibility of parole).
3. Successive Motion Restriction Limitations
“[T]he restrictions on a trial court’s authority contained in MCR 6.500 et seq. . . . only limit a court’s ability to review a ‘judgment of conviction and sentence[.]’” People v Washington , 508 Mich 107, 131 (2021). Accordingly, the “trial court’s ability to recognize a subject-matter jurisdiction error and remedy it” was not limited by the provisions of MCR 6.502(G) despite the fact that the error was raised in a successive motion for relief from judgment, and “ MCR 6.502(G)(2) does not contain an exception for jurisdictional errors[.]” Washington , 508 Mich at 131-132 (holding the judgment of sentence rendered by the court without subject-matter jurisdiction was void ab initio , and under those circumstances, “there was no valid sentence to review”). Stated differently, “[a] defect in the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, including in a successive 6.500 motion.” People v Johnson , ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2022), citing Washington , 508 Mich at 132.
However, there is no subject-matter jurisdiction defect in a criminal case where the trial court resentences a defendant pursuant to a remand order from the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court simultaneously exercises jurisdiction over a separate but related civil complaint for superintending control. Johnson , ___ Mich App at ___. Accordingly, because “the trial court did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction to resentence” the defendant, the defendant’s successive motion for relief from judgment should have been denied. Id. at ___ (in his successive motion for relief from judgment defendant argued he was entitled to resentencing because the trial court lacked jurisdiction on the basis of his civil complaint for superintending control pending in the Supreme Court; the Court rejected this argument).
“[A] successive motion for relief from judgment may only be filed if, after the first motion, there is a retroactive change in the law or new evidence is discovered . . . .” People v Robinson , ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024). In Robinson , defendant “contend[ed] that the trial court erroneously denied his successive motion for relief from judgment” because the decision in People v Peeler , 509 Mich 381 (2022), rendered defendant’s charges and subsequent prosecution void. Robinson , ___ Mich App at ___. Defendant claimed that his “indictment by a one-man grand jury, without a preliminary examination, [deprived] the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.” Id . at ____. Defendant claimed that “this lack of jurisdiction render[ed] the judgment [against him] void[.]” Id . at ___. The Court disagreed, stating “that an indictment via one-man grand jury, although erroneous under Peeler , does not deprive the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id . at ___. “Therefore, the judgment [in Robinson ] was not void for a lack of jurisdiction.” Id . at ___.
In addition, “ Peeler did not involve a retroactive change in the law, so [the Robinson defendant was] not entitled to relief from judgment on this basis.” Robinson , ___ Mich App at ___. “In determining retroactivity, courts must first address the threshold question of whether a decision amounts to a new rule of law.” Id . at ___ (cleaned up). A rule of law is new for purposes of determining its retroactivity when it overrules an established precedent or when it decides an issue of first impression that was not foreshadowed by an earlier appellate decision. Id . at ___. The Robinson Court concluded that “ Peeler ’s holdings did not establish any new rule because the Court did not announce a new rule that was not dictated by precedent.” Robinson , ___ Mich App at ___. “Instead, Peeler ’s decision was based on the proper interpretation of longstanding statutory authority in existence since well before [the Robinson defendant’s] indictment and conviction[.]” Robinson , ___ Mich App at ___.
H. No Filing Deadline
“ MCR 6.502 does not contain a deadline by which motions for relief from judgment must be filed.” People v Suttles , 505 Mich 1038 (2020) (vacating the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment in part on the basis of it being “untimely”).
1 In 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court rendered the previously-mandatory sentencing guidelines “advisory only.” People v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358, 365 (2015), rev’g in part 304 Mich App 278 (2014) and overruling People v Herron , 303 Mich App 392 (2013). Although “sentencing courts [are no longer] bound by the applicable sentencing guidelines range,” they must “continue to consult the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence,” and they “must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.” Lockridge , 498 Mich at 392, citing People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 549 (1983), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Milbourn , 435 Mich 630, 644 (1990). For more information on the precedential value of an opinion with negative subsequent history, see our note . See the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Criminal Proceedings Benchbook Vol. 2 , Chapter 1, for a detailed discussion of Lockridge .
2 Miller v Alabama , 567 US 460 (2012), and Montgomery v Louisiana , 577 US 190 (2016), address sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Juvenile Justice Benchbook , Chapter 19.
3 In People v Parks , 510 Mich 225, 255 (2022), the Michigan Supreme Court determined that “mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants to life in prison, without first considering the attributes of youth, is unusually excessive imprisonment and thus a disproportionate sentence that constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16.” People v Poole , ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024). For a detailed discussion of this issue, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Juvenile Justice Benchbook , Chapter 19.