Involuntary mental-health treatment; Continuing treatment order; MCL 330.1400(f); Ineffective assistance of counsel; In re Londowski; Counsel consultation; MCL 330.1454(7); Certification requirement; MCL 330.1454(9); In re Jestila; Evidentiary hearing; People v Ginther

The court held that respondent failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the order for continuing involuntary mental-health treatment. Respondent had a history of court-ordered treatment beginning in 2016, was transferred from jail to a hospital after an altercation with his mother, and later became the subject of a petition for a one-year continuing treatment order after repeated noncompliance with a prior order. On appeal, the court first rejected respondent’s claim that he did not understand the petition sought one year of treatment because he relied on a declaration outside the lower court record, the record showed he was personally served with a petition that “expressly recited the one-year duration in two distinct locations,” and he stated on the record that he agreed to a treatment order. The court next held that counsel’s failure to file the certification required by MCL 330.1454(9) fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but respondent could not show prejudice because the record showed counsel met with him before the hearing, understood his consent to treatment and medication concerns, and “competently communicated respondent’s wishes to the court.” The court also deemed abandoned respondent’s claim that counsel should have scheduled a review hearing because he cited no authority imposing that duty. Finally, the court denied remand for a Ginther hearing because respondent’s declaration did not raise new factual disputes and an involuntary-treatment order “does not require respondent’s consent.” Affirmed.