MICHIGAN CRIMINAL APPEALS
Why Choose Czarnecki & Taylor for Your Michigan Criminal Appeal
When the gavel falls and a devastating sentence is handed down, the state wants you to believe the fight is over. It is not. However, the dangerous trap many families fall into is hiring a general trial lawyer to fix a broken trial. Post-conviction litigation requires an entirely different perspective. Trial attorneys look at live courtrooms; the elite appellate team at Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC looks at record transcripts. Winning an appeal is not about re-arguing innocence—it is about exposing legal errors. Our firm knows how to dissect thousands of pages of court records to pull out the hidden structural mistakes, buried constitutional issues, and fatal flaws that trial attorneys commonly gloss over.
The "One-Shot" Rule Limitation: Under Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 6.500, a defendant generally gets exactly one opportunity in their lifetime to file a Motion for Relief from Judgment. Risking that one shot on a cheap, rushed, or boilerplate motion is a permanent mistake; if a judge denies it, the door locks forever.
The Two-Phase Protection Process: We protect that narrow window by executing a strict, two-phase process. We begin with a meticulous, page-by-page Trial Record Audit to uncover exactly what went wrong. We don't guess, and we don't offer false promises.
Surgical Error Isolation: We isolate the fatal mistakes—such as ineffective assistance of counsel (Strickland standards), uncalled key alibi witnesses, hidden evidence, or unconstitutional evidentiary rulings—necessary to legally compel a court to grant a new trial.
Do not leave your loved one's freedom to chance or settle for general representation when the stakes are life and death. If you are ready to secure a rigorous, independent transcript evaluation and protect your family's final line of defense, contact Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC today. Let our specialized brief writers stop the clock and start the review process before your appellate timelines expire.
Experienced Representation When You Are Fighting a Criminal Conviction
A Criminal Conviction Is Not Necessarily the End of the Fight.
When a jury returns a guilty verdict, or a judge enters a conviction after a plea, it can feel like the fight is over. For many people, it feels like there is nowhere left to turn. But the criminal justice system has an appellate process for a reason.
Trial courts make mistakes. Lawyers make mistakes. Prosecutors make mistakes. Judges make mistakes. And when those mistakes violate the law or a defendant's constitutional rights, an experienced appellate attorney can make the difference between accepting a conviction and fighting to overturn it.
At Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC, we represent individuals throughout Michigan who are challenging criminal convictions, sentences, pleas, and serious legal errors.
Our firm handles Michigan criminal appeals, Michigan Court of Appeals cases, Michigan Supreme Court matters, federal criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, MCR 6.500 motions, and other post-conviction matters.
And when you hire our firm, you are not simply hiring someone to file paperwork.
You are hiring an attorney to look for what went wrong.
Criminal Appeals Require a Different Kind of Lawyer
A criminal trial is about presenting evidence and persuading a judge or jury. A criminal appeal is different. The appellate lawyer must go back through the record and reconstruct what happened—often line by line—to determine whether the conviction or sentence was affected by a reversible legal error. That requires more than knowing criminal law. It requires understanding:
What happened.
What should have happened.
What the law required.
What the trial court actually did.
What the defense attorney did—or failed to do.
What the prosecutor did.
What evidence the jury heard.
And whether the error was significant enough to justify relief.
Sometimes the issue is obvious. Sometimes it is buried deep inside a transcript that few people will ever read carefully.
Finding that issue can change everything.
James Czarnecki started his career as an appellate attorney.
Even before graduating from law school, James was hired by prominent appellate lawyer Gerald Lorence. James spent years learning from Mr. Lorence. Eventually James started researching and writing the legal briefs for Mr. Lorence. Once James was admitted to the bar, he argued the cases in the Court of Appeals instead of Mr. Lorence. Based on the record, Gerald M. Lorence was a very good—and by the standards of Michigan criminal appellate practice, genuinely prominent—appellate lawyer. There is unusually strong contemporary evidence for that assessment. The best independent description is from the State Bar of Michigan Appellate Practice Journal, which described Lorence as a “top criminal appellate attorney in Metro Detroit” and a “stalwart in the criminal appellate community, especially in Wayne County.” While James worked with Mr. Lorence, their published opinions include murder, felony murder, criminal sexual conduct, conspiracy, and other major felony convictions. The experience James gained while working with Mr. Lorence was invaluable.
A lawyer can find twenty potential errors in a transcript. A skilled appellate advocate has to determine which two or three actually have the potential to change the outcome. Working alongside an experienced criminal appellate lawyer like Lorence would have exposed James to that judgment repeatedly. Lorence's own career demonstrates the level of appellate practice involved. His work included cases involving murder convictions, post-conviction proceedings, habeas corpus, and constitutional claims. So James wasn't merely learning how to write a brief. He was learning how an experienced appellate lawyer thinks about a case.
James Czarnecki: An Appellate Lawyer With Trial-Court Experience
James Czarnecki brings a combination of appellate and courtroom experience that is particularly valuable in criminal appeals. He began his legal career handling criminal appeals and has continued representing defendants in appellate and post-conviction matters throughout his career. He has appeared before the Michigan Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court, and federal courts, while also litigating more than 1,000 criminal cases at the trial-court level.
That combination is important. An appellate lawyer needs to understand what happens in the courtroom. A trial lawyer needs to understand how the record will later be examined by an appellate court.
James Czarnecki has experience on both sides of that line.
He understands how trial decisions are made—and how those decisions can later become appellate issues.
We Look Beyond the Verdict
The question in a criminal appeal is not simply:
"Did you do it?"
The appellate question may instead be:
"Was the conviction obtained through a proceeding that complied with the law and the Constitution?"
That can lead to very different questions.
Was your attorney constitutionally effective?
Was important evidence improperly admitted?
Was favorable evidence withheld?
Did the prosecutor engage in misconduct?
Did the court give legally incorrect jury instructions?
Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction?
Was your right to counsel violated?
Were you denied the ability to understand or participate in your own trial?
Was your sentence based on incorrect information or improperly scored guidelines?
Was your guilty plea knowing, voluntary, and legally valid?
Did something happen at trial that fundamentally affected the fairness of the proceeding?
These are the questions an experienced Michigan criminal appeals attorney must investigate.
A Published Court of Appeals Victory that Established Rights in Michigan.
In People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo, 308 Mich App 175 (2014), James Czarnecki successfully litigated an issue concerning a criminal defendant's constitutional right to understand and participate in his trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the right to simultaneous interpretation is not merely statutory, but implicates constitutional rights to due process, presence at trial, confrontation, and participation in one's defense. The Court further held that defense counsel could not waive that right on the defendant's behalf without the defendant's personal and informed waiver. The published decision has subsequently been cited by Michigan appellate courts and incorporated into the Michigan Judicial Institute's criminal trial benchbook.
James didn't merely obtain an unpublished reversal for one client. James litigated a case that resulted in a published Michigan Court of Appeals opinion establishing precedent concerning a criminal defendant's constitutional rights. And the precedent has subsequently been:
cited by published Michigan appellate decisions;
cited by unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals decisions;
incorporated into the Michigan Judicial Institute's Criminal Proceedings Benchbook;
applied to the constitutional right to be present;
applied to confrontation and participation in one's defense;
applied to personal waiver of constitutional rights; and
used in later cases involving defendants who required foreign-language interpreters.
A conviction was examined.
A constitutional problem was identified.
A new trial was obtained.
The prosecution challenged that result.
And the new-trial ruling was successfully defended on appeal.
The decision also became part of Michigan's published body of appellate precedent.
The Michigan Judicial Institute now teaches the rule
This may actually be one of the strongest indicators of the case's practical significance. The Michigan Judicial Institute's Criminal Proceedings Trial Benchbook specifically cites Gonzalez-Raymundo in its discussion of:
“Failure to Appoint Foreign Language Interpreter”
It tells judges that lack of simultaneous translation can implicate constitutional due-process rights and the defendant's right to be present.
It also cites Gonzalez-Raymundo in the chapter dealing specifically with interpreters and tells judges that when there are indications that a defendant may lack sufficient English comprehension, the court should:
satisfy itself concerning proficiency;
provide simultaneous interpretation; or
obtain the defendant's personal, informed waiver.
That's a significant development. It means the case has moved beyond being something appellate lawyers cite in briefs. It is part of the instructional material used to educate Michigan judges about criminal proceedings. It demonstrates actual appellate lawmaking. James represented one defendant. But the resulting opinion established rules affecting other defendants throughout Michigan.
For an appellate advocate, this is the difference between merely handling an appeal and shaping the law through appellate litigation. Gonzalez-Raymundo demonstrates several of the skills that define effective criminal appellate advocacy: meticulous issue spotting, sophisticated constitutional analysis, careful use of the trial record, recognition of the consequences of waiver, and the ability to present an individual client's problem as a question of broader legal significance. James did not simply argue that an error had occurred. He identified why the error implicated fundamental constitutional rights and persuaded the appellate court to articulate a rule that would protect defendants in future cases.
That is the approach James Czarnecki brings to every serious criminal appeal. He understands that an appeal is not a retrial and that successful appellate advocacy requires something different: finding the legal weakness in the judgment below, isolating the strongest issue, developing the constitutional and statutory framework supporting it, and presenting the argument with precision and force. Whether the objective is reversal, a new trial, resentencing, or another form of meaningful relief, James approaches the appellate record with the determination to find every viable path to victory.
The strongest appellate advocates do more than identify error. They identify the error that matters—and then make the court understand why it matters. James Czarnecki's work in Gonzalez-Raymundo demonstrates that kind of advocacy.
Another Constitutional Victory
James volunteered his legal expertise to the ACLU. With a team of attorneys, James, through the ACLU of Michigan, filed a legal challenge against Kent County Circuit Court Judge Dennis C. Kolenda for refusing to provide court-appointed appellate counsel to indigent defendants, in direct defiance of binding U.S. and state Supreme Court precedent.
The Conflict
The Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Halbert v. Michigan that poor defendants who plead no contest or guilty have a constitutional right to appointed appellate counsel.
The Defiance: Judge Kolenda publicly refused to follow the Halbert decision, calling it “incorrect” and “illogical,” and continued denying lawyers to low-income defendants seeking appeals.
The Lawsuit: Through the ACLU, James and a team of attorneys, filed a "Complaint for Superintending Control" in the Michigan Court of Appeals to force the judge to comply with the law and protect the constitutional rights of impoverished defendants.
The Resolution: The Court of Appeals ruled against Judge Kolenda, declaring his reasoning flawed and affirming that the Halbert precedent must be strictly followed. The Court of Appeals held that Judge Kolenda's reasoning was “flawed” and that "there can be no credible dispute" that the Halbert case "governs the circumstances of this case with regard to defendant's essential right to appointed counsel."
Czarnecki has a distinctive constitutional-rights background
This is another point that is genuinely significant. Czarnecki worked with the ACLU on criminal cases and participated in litigation involving constitutional rights and appellate counsel. The ACLU's own historical materials identify Czarnecki as one of the cooperating attorneys involved in the litigation surrounding the right of indigent defendants to appointed appellate counsel.
Michigan Court of Appeals Representation
If you have been convicted in a Michigan trial court, the Michigan Court of Appeals may provide your first opportunity for appellate review. But an appeal is governed by strict procedural requirements. The available remedy may depend on:
How the conviction occurred
Whether you went to trial or entered a plea
The sentence imposed
Whether you have an appeal of right
Whether you must file an application for leave to appeal
Whether an issue was preserved at trial
When the judgment was entered
Whether the ordinary appeal period has expired
Whether post-conviction relief is necessary
Timing matters.
If you have recently been convicted or sentenced, do not wait to find out whether an appeal is available. Speak with an experienced Michigan criminal appeals attorney as soon as possible.
Michigan Supreme Court Appeals
The Michigan Supreme Court is Michigan's highest court. Not every criminal case will be accepted for review. A successful application requires more than repeating arguments that were already made below. It requires identifying an issue that warrants the Supreme Court's attention and explaining why the Court should exercise its discretion to hear the case. James Czarnecki has experience handling criminal appellate matters involving the Michigan Supreme Court, in addition to his work before the Michigan Court of Appeals. For a defendant facing years in prison or the permanent consequences of a felony conviction, every legitimate avenue of review deserves careful consideration.
Michigan MCR 6.500 Motions
Sometimes a direct appeal is no longer available—or it is not the appropriate vehicle for the issue. That is where Michigan post-conviction relief may become important. Under certain circumstances, a defendant may be able to seek relief through a Motion for Relief from Judgment under MCR 6.500.
These proceedings can involve serious allegations concerning:
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
Newly discovered evidence
Constitutional violations
Invalid pleas
Serious trial errors
Sentencing errors
Prosecutorial misconduct
Newly recognized legal principles
Other grounds potentially warranting relief
A 6.500 motion is not simply another opportunity to argue that a jury was wrong. It requires a legally recognized basis for relief and must overcome applicable procedural requirements.
The difference between a compelling post-conviction claim and a motion that goes nowhere can be the quality of the legal analysis behind it.
Appeals After a Guilty Plea
A guilty plea changes the appellate landscape—but it does not necessarily eliminate every possible avenue of relief.
Depending upon the circumstances, a defendant may have grounds to challenge issues involving:
The validity of the plea
Whether the plea was knowing and voluntary
Ineffective assistance of counsel
Whether the defendant received accurate legal advice
Sentencing errors
Constitutional violations
Other defects surrounding the plea or sentence
If you pleaded guilty and believe your attorney failed you, do not assume that you have no options simply because there was no trial. The circumstances surrounding the plea need to be examined.
Federal Criminal Appeals
Czarnecki & Taylor also represents clients in federal criminal appeals and federal post-conviction matters.Federal appellate litigation involves its own procedural requirements, standards of review, and constitutional considerations. James Czarnecki's experience with federal criminal cases provides additional perspective when a client's case moves beyond Michigan's state courts.
What Can a Successful Appeal Do?
Every case is different. No ethical attorney can promise that an appeal will succeed. But when a legitimate legal error exists, appellate litigation can potentially result in:
A Conviction Being Reversed
A conviction may be vacated when the appellate court determines that a reversible error affected the proceedings.
A New Trial
A defendant may receive another opportunity to defend against the charges.
A Sentence Being Vacated
A sentencing error may result in a remand for resentencing.
A Guilty Plea Being Challenged
In appropriate circumstances, defects surrounding a plea may provide a basis for relief.
Post-Conviction Relief
A defendant may be able to seek relief even after the ordinary direct appeal process has ended. The potential remedy depends upon the error. That is why the first step is not promising you a result. The first step is finding out whether there is a viable legal argument.
Why Czarnecki & Taylor?
There are many attorneys who handle criminal cases. There are fewer who combine substantial criminal trial experience with dedicated appellate and post-conviction experience. At Czarnecki & Taylor, we understand that appellate advocacy begins with the record. We look at what happened before the trial. What happened during the trial. What happened at sentencing. What happened afterward. And what the previous attorneys did—or failed to do. We then determine whether the law provides a legitimate basis to challenge the result. Our approach is not to manufacture arguments. It is to find the strongest legitimate argument the record will support—and fight it aggressively.
Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC represents clients in:
Michigan Criminal Appeals
Michigan Court of Appeals
Michigan Supreme Court
Federal Criminal Appeals
MCR 6.500 Motions
Post-Conviction Relief
Habeas Corpus Proceedings
Sentencing Appeals
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims
