PEOPLE v. BROWN, 108866 (Mich. 2-25-1999)

589 N.W.2d 771 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLIE D. BROWN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 108866.Supreme Court of Michigan. February 25, 1999. On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of November 24, 1998, is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was […]

Read More

PEOPLE v. MATTOX, 459 Mich. 912 (1998)

589 N.W.2d 771 PEOPLE v. MATTOX. No. 111502.Supreme Court of Michigan. November 24, 1998. Leave to Appeal Denied November 24, 1998. Court of Appeals No. 200288 CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would remand the case to the Court of Appeals with direction that it remand the case to the trial court for a hearing pursuant […]

Read More

PEOPLE v. MATTOX, 459 Mich. 912 (1998)

589 N.W.2d 771 PEOPLE v. MATTOX. No. 111502.Supreme Court of Michigan. November 24, 1998. Leave to Appeal Denied November 24, 1998. Court of Appeals No. 200288 CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would remand the case to the Court of Appeals with direction that it remand the case to the trial court for a hearing pursuant […]

Read More

PEOPLE v. BUFFMAN, 459 Mich. 911 (1998)

589 N.W.2d 771 PEOPLE v. BUFFMAN. No. 111945.Supreme Court of Michigan. November 24, 1998. Leave to Appeal Denied November 24, 1998. The defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). Court of Appeals No. 202314.

Read More

PEOPLE v. CODDINGTON, 459 Mich. 912 (1998)

589 N.W.2d 771 PEOPLE v. CODDINGTON. No. 112000.Supreme Court of Michigan. November 24, 1998. Leave to Appeal Denied November 24, 1998. The defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). Court of Appeals No. 204909.

Read More

PEOPLE v. HUTCHINSON, 108459 (Mich. 2-25-1999)

589 N.W.2d 771 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOUGLAS HUTCHINSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 108459.Supreme Court of Michigan. February 25, 1999. On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is treated as a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of November 24, 1998, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear […]

Read More