155239 - People v Jonathan David Hewitt-El
Attorney Information
The
People of the State of Michigan,
|
|
Margaret Gillis Ayalp
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Wayne – Morrow, B.)
|
|
Jonathan David Hewitt-El,
a/k/a Jonathan David Hewitt,
|
|
Chari K. Grove
|
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Defendant Jonathan David Hewitt-El was convicted
of armed robbery, assault, and weapons offenses in 2010. On direct appeal,
defendant argued that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to investigate and present evidence of an alibi and by allowing the
prosecution to impeach his testimony with his prior convictions. The Court of
Appeals rejected these claims and affirmed defendant’s convictions. In 2011,
the Supreme Court denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal. In 2012,
defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment under MCR Subchapter 6.500, arguing
that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain his armed robbery
conviction and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
investigate, develop, and present an alibi defense. The trial court denied the sufficiency
of the evidence claim but ordered an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. Following the hearing, the trial court found that
both trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and ordered a
new trial for defendant. The prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeals peremptorily
vacated the trial court’s ruling on the basis that the trial court had not applied
the standards for ruling on a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.508.
The Supreme Court has directed oral argument on defendant’s application for
leave to appeal to address whether: (1) defendant’s alleged grounds for relief
were decided against him on direct appeal, MCR 6.508(D)(2); (2) the Court of
Appeals failed to defer to the circuit court’s credibility determinations; and
(3) defendant has established entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).