STATE OF MICHIGAN
FOR THE COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH
Courthouse, Centreville, Michigan 49032
* * * *
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
vs. File No. 03-11986
THOMAS J. ROBERTSON (P36177)
Attorney for Defendant
105 S. Maple
PO Box 176
Sturgis, MI 49091
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
The attorney for the defendant states:
1. On April 28, 2006, this Court entered an order appointing this attorney to represent the
defendant. The order discharged Attorney Ronald Grubbs who previously represented the
2. As far as this attorney knows, there were no proceedings pending in this court on April
28, 2006. Apparently, the order appointing attorney entered because the Court had issued
a writ for the defendant’s appearance in court on May 19, 2006. This attorney did meet
with the defendant on May 19, but there was no hearing, and this attorney does not know
why the writ was issued for the defendant’s appearance.
3. This attorney has received no information whatsoever with regard to the defendant’s
charges, if any, or the status of those charges. The only documentation received by this
attorney is the April 28, 2006, order appointing attorney.
Wherefore, it is requested that all filed local court documents, police reports, appellate court
filings, and any other documents or materials related to this matter be delivered to this
MOTION TO REMAND TO DISTRICT COURT FOR PRELIMARY EXAMINATION
4. This attorney was appointed by the Court to replace Attorney Grubbs, who was also a
5. This attorney does not know what stage of the proceedings the case was in when the court
discharged Attorney Grubbs, but it appears that there was a preliminary examination.
6. This Court would not have discharged Attorney Grubbs unless the court found that a
conflict based upon substantial grounds existed between Attorney Grubbs and the
defendant. People v Wilson, 43 Mich App 549, People v Bass 88 Mich App 793,
Donigan v Finn , 95 Mich App 28, People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436. An indigent
defendant is not entitled to choose a particular lawyer, but only to representation by
counsel who performs at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the
criminal law. People v Gendron, 144 Mich App 509.
7. A preliminary examination is a critical stage of criminal proceedings where a defendant is
entitled to adequate legal representation. People v Bladel, 421 Mich 39. This Court’s
discharge of Attorney Grubbs implies that the defendant did not have representation
under the Gendron standard.
WHERREFORE, this attorney requests that this matter be remanded to the district court for
Thomas J. Robertson
Notice of Hearing
Please take notice: These motions will be heard in the Circuit Court on December 28,
2006 at 2:00 pm.
Proof of Service
Thomas J. Robertson states that he delivered a copy of this document to the prosecuting
attorney on December ____________, 2006.