Motion for restoration of appellate rights under MCR 6.428

Holding that “the trial court did not provide any rationale for its decision,” the court vacated the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for restoration of appellate rights under MCR 6.428, and remanded for reconsideration of his motion. He argued “that under the current version of MCR 6.428, he is entitled to the restoration of his appellate rights because he has shown that his appellate rights were denied because of factors outside of his control—that he delivered the completed ‘request for appointment of appellate counsel’ form to trial counsel, but counsel never provided it to the court.” The court declined “to resolve defendant’s substantive arguments because [it was] unable to discern the basis for the trial court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion.” It concluded that “the trial court did not specify whether—and why—it was applying the amended version of MCR 6.428 or the previous version, so we are unable to determine whether that choice ‘fell outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.’” It determined that on “remand, the trial court must specify whether it is applying the amended version of MCR 6.428 and provide its rationale.” Also, on remand, “the trial court must consider all record evidence and articulate its reasoning for the disposition of the motion.”