Motion to set aside a conviction; People v Butka; MCL 780.621d(13)

The court vacated the order denying defendant-Woodcox’s application to set aside his convictions and remanded for analysis under the legal framework stated in Butka. He was convicted by guilty plea of CSC IV. The prosecutor conceded "that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his set-aside application by failing to conduct the proper analysis outlined in” Butka. The court concluded that as “a threshold issue, Butka applies in full to the trial court’s consideration of Woodcox’s application.” Turning to the facts, the trial “court found Woodcox otherwise eligible for expungement before exercising its discretion under MCL 780.621d(13) to deny his application. In so ruling, the trial court did not properly apply and account for each element of the two-part standard.” First, the court found that “the trial court’s analysis did not properly account for whether Woodcox’s postconviction ‘circumstances and behavior[,]’ warranted setting aside the convictions.” Second, it held that “the trial court’s analysis did not properly account for whether setting aside Woodcox’s convictions would be ‘consistent with the public welfare . . . .’” The court held that because the trial “court’s decision denying Woodcox’s application was based upon errors of law, the [trial] court necessarily abused its discretion when reaching the decision.”