Following
a bench trial, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the juvenile respondent
responsible for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. On appeal, the respondent challenged his
attorney’s performance and the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial
court for an evidentiary hearing. After
the evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the respondent was
denied the effective assistance of counsel and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
in an unpublished opinion and denied the respondent’s motion for
reconsideration. The respondent filed an
application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, but the prosecution
argued that the application was untimely because juvenile delinquency cases are
civil in nature and the respondent did not file his application within 42 days
of the Court of Appeals order denying reconsideration as required by MCR
7.305(C)(2)(c). The Supreme Court has
ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether appeals from juvenile
adjudications for criminal offenses are governed by the time limits for civil
cases or by the time limits for criminal cases, see MCR 7.305(C)(2); (2)
whether the standard for granting a new trial in a juvenile delinquency case is
the same as the standard for granting a new trial in a criminal case, compare
MCR 3.992(A) with MCR 6.431(B); (3) whether juveniles who claim a deprivation
of their due process right to counsel must satisfy the two-part test set forth
in Strickland v Washington, 466 US
668, 687 (1984); and (4) whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the
trial court’s decision to grant the respondent a new trial based on evidence
that trial counsel did not obtain or present.