Motion for relief from judgment; MCR 6.508(D); Alleged Sixth Amendment right to counsel violation during arraignment; Hospital arraignment; People v Sullivan; Alleged mental incompetence at the time of the arraignment; Constitutional right to an appeal; The trial court’s failure to preserve a note addressing a potential juror-conflict issue

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment based on his claims relating to his arraignment. Further, his constitutional right to an appeal was not violated by the trial court’s failure to preserve a jury note. He filed his motion nearly 20 years after his convictions. The trial court granted him relief as to a correction to his presentence investigation report but denied his other claims. He argued on appeal that it erred in denying his claim that “his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated during his arraignment[,]” which took place while he was in the hospital. The court first concluded he failed to show that he did not have appointed counsel at his arraignment. His “reliance on the register of actions is not sufficient alone to provide a factual basis for his claim, given that the order appointing counsel for [him] was signed the same day as the arraignment.” Further, even if he did not have counsel, he failed to establish “that his Sixth Amendment right was violated based on the record” presented. The court noted it held in Sullivan “that a hospital arraignment was not a critical stage of the proceedings based on the circumstances” of the case. As in Sullivan, nothing in the record here indicated “that defendant’s hospital arraignment was a critical stage of the proceedings that required the presence of counsel.” He could not show “any circumstances arising from his arraignment to suggest that the purported absence of counsel harmed his right to a fair trial when defendant stood mute and did not enter a plea.” There also was no indication that he “made any statements or admissions, waived any defenses, or was otherwise prejudiced at trial because of his lack of counsel at the arraignment.” As to his due process claim based on his assertion that “he was mentally incompetent at the time of” the arraignment, it was not clear from the record that was in fact the case. There was no official determination from the hospital to this effect. There was also “no indication in the record that defendant requested a competency hearing, showed that he was unable to understand the arraignment proceedings, or otherwise brought facts to the trial court’s attention that would raise doubts to his competence.”