Michigan Supreme Court· 11/7/2017

People v. Randolph

Citations

917 N.W.2d 249
502 Mich. 1

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “[a] ‘clear or obvious’ error under the second prong” of the Carines plain-error test “is one that is not ‘subject to reasonable dispute’ ”
holding that an appellate court must not conflate the ineffective-assistance and plain-error standards because “the claims associated with each type of error have their own elements and require different analyses”
noting that the “obviousness” of the error for plain-error purposes might not correlate with whether trial counsel performed deficiently
noting that the “obviousness” of the error for plain-error purposes might not correlate with whether trial counsel performed deficiently
noting that the “obviousness” of the error for plain-error purposes might not correlate with whether trial counsel performed deficiently
noting that it is not ineffective for an attorney to forgo objecting to even an obvious error if there is a valid strategic reason for the attorney’s choice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bench, Clement, Viviano

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named People v. Randolph

76 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.