Motion for an evidentiary hearing to correct alleged errors in the transcripts; Waived ineffective assistance of counsel issue; Alleged transcript errors; Motion for disqualification; Appellate counsel request

The court held that the “trial court did not err by declining to rule on” defendant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing to correct alleged errors in the transcripts as the motion was not properly before it. Also, he did not make “a colorable claim that errors in the transcripts adversely affected his rights.” Finally, it found that under “any scenario, defendant’s motion to disqualify the trial judge” was untimely, and the trial court correctly denied it on that basis. He was convicted of possession of meth, second or subsequent offense. Defendant contended, among other things, “that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for an evidentiary hearing to correct alleged errors in the transcripts.” The court noted that the “trial court did not rule on defendant’s motion to correct the record, and the circuit court clerk returned defendant’s pleadings as improperly filed, because defendant had retained counsel at the time, and MCR 1.109(E)(2) provides that ‘[e]very document of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record.’” He failed to show “any error in the clerk’s determination that his motion should have been returned without filing. In addition to the requirement of MCR 1.109(E)(2), caselaw makes clear that ‘a defendant has a constitutional entitlement to represent himself or to be represented by counsel—but not both.’” The court noted that no “right to ‘hybrid’ representation exists, . . . and ‘the right of self-representation and the right to counsel are mutually exclusive[.]’” It further noted that his attorney, L, continued to represent him “through sentencing, and defendant was not permitted to simultaneously act as his own counsel by filing and arguing his own motions during [L’s] representation.” As to the alleged transcript errors, the court held that his allegation was unsupported and that he could not “show that the failure to raise the issue deprived him of any postconviction rights.” Affirmed.