People of Michigan v. Ikeie Ranordo Smith

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 18, 2022 Plaintiff-Appellee, V No. 355049 Wayne Circuit Court IKEIE RANORDO SMITH, LC No. 16-009361-01-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: GADOLA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and K. F. KELLY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted1 the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment, in which defendant sought to withdraw his guilty pleas in the trial court. Finding no errors warranting reversal, we affirm. I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In lower court Case No. 16-009361-01-FC, defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(1)(c), and unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 55 to 80 years in prison for each of four convictions of CSC-I, 12 to 20 years in prison for the home invasion conviction, and 10 to 15 years in prison for the unarmed robbery conviction. Defendant, through appellate counsel, filed a delayed application for leave to appeal, in which he asserted he was not properly advised of the scope of possible punishments before entering his pleas and his trial counsel was ineffective. This Court denied defendant’s delayed application “for lack of merit in the grounds presented.” People v Smith, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, 1 People v Smith, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 30, 2020 (Docket No. 355049). -1- entered May 29, 2018 (Docket No. 342913). Defendant later filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied.2 This appeal followed. II. CLAIMS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL We note at the outset that this Court granted delayed leave “limited to the issues raised in the application.” People v Smith, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 30, 2020 (Docket No. 355049). Our review is thus properly limited to those issues. MCR 7.205(E)(4); see also People v White, 337 Mich App 558, 567 n 3; 977 NW2d 138 (2021) (stating this Court will not consider arguments other than “those raised in the application”). Accordingly, we decline to consider defendant’s claims that (1) the trial court failed to advise defendant about the requirement to register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, MCL 28.721 et seq.; (2) the court failed formally to ask defendant, “How do you plead?”; (3) the court failed to advise defendant of, and determine that he understood, the names of the offenses to which he was pleading; (4) the court failed to explain, and determine that defendant understood, the maximum possible sentences for the offenses; and (5) the trial court misstated the maximum possible sentence for armed robbery and failed to explain its mandatory minimum sentence. III. ISSUES FROM PRIOR APPEAL IN DOCKET NO. 342913 Defendant argues that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea because it was involuntary where …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals