What is the Difference Between Substantive Rule and Procedural Rule in Michigan Law?

The Michigan appellate system often works with two types of rules, procedural and substantive rules. And if you're pursuing an appeal for your case, you must understand the difference between the two rules as it can dictate whether you or your loved one's conviction stands or crumbles on appeal. In criminal appeals, habeas corpus, or post-conviction relief, your proper understanding of these rules can position you well to get your desired outcome. 

Substantive rules can open the door to freedom while procedural missteps can lock it tight and shut it for good. And knowing when to apply which rule could mean the difference between justice served and justice denied. 

The Basic Doctrinal Definitions of the Rules

In essence, procedural and substantive rules differ greatly in how they function. Substantive rules are rules that affect how a case turns out by determining what actions are legal or illegal and what the penalties for illegal actions are. They essentially define rights, obligations, and legal relationships. 

Procedural rules, on the other hand, guide the steps for making sure rights and duties are respected. They set the rules for how things work in the courtroom in terms of how trials proceed, how appeals are filed, and how judges manage cases. Decisions from cases like the Teague v. Lane 489 U. S. 288 (1989) are responsible for defining the legal framework. The Teague case is a U.S. Supreme Court case that guides Michigan courts when determining if new legal rules should apply to old cases.

Understanding Substantive Rules in Michigan

In Michigan criminal law, a substantive rule is typically responsible for adjusting the definition of punishable conduct under the law, cutting down on what counts as a crime, or changing the steps required to demonstrate someone is guilty as charged. It can also establish or remove legal defenses and redefine who is eligible for more severe penalties. 

An example of a substantive change is when the Michigan Supreme Court gives a new meaning to how the law defines “force or coercion” under Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 750.250b. The new interpretation may now mean that some behavior that was once punishable is now excluded.

Understanding Procedural Rules in Michigan 

When it comes to procedural rules, instead of altering legal rights and duties, they explain how to use and enforce those rights. You'll often find these rules in Michigan Court Rules (MCR), notice requirements, rules of evidence, jury instructions and trial management, and timing rules for motions or appeals. 

For instance, MCR 7.205(A)(2) states that any requests to appeal final decisions in criminal cases must be made within 6 months. And failing to meet the set deadline doesn't mean the legality of your conviction is affected. It simply means that missing the deadline prevents the court from reviewing it. 

In the same way, if you're the defendant in a case and you argue that the court didn't obtain a proper waiver of your right to a jury trial, the court might agree with you. However, it may rule that the flawed process was a procedural error and that means your case will go through the harmless-error review. And unless you can prove that the mistake caused harm, it's unlikely your conviction will be reversed. 

Why Differentiating The Rules Matters in Michigan Retroactivity

The distinction between procedural and substantive rules becomes a big deal when the retroactivity principle comes into play. Based on the Teague v. Lane case, new substantive rules can be used in later reviews of past cases but new procedural rules can’t. The only exception is when the new procedural rules are “watershed rules of criminal procedure” which are extremely uncommon. 

And in Michigan, substantive rule changes like modifying the definition of criminal acts or their penalties also generally apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. The doctrine is especially critical in post-conviction motions under MCR 6.500. Once your case is finalized and you decide to seek relief through a motion for relief from judgment, a new substantive rule can be useful. 

However, if you choose to use a new procedural rule for your motion, you won't succeed. For success, you must show either a retroactive substantive change in the law, a jurisdictional defect, new evidence, or prove actual innocence. Therefore, the classification of a rule can be a huge factor in deciding whether you'll be granted relief or not.

When the Distinction is Not So Obvious 

Not all rules are black and white. Sometimes, it gets hard to accurately place a rule in the substantive or procedural category. And this leads to heated arguments in appeals. A good example of such a scenario is the Miller v. Alabama 567. U. S. 460 (2012) case. Here, the U. S. Supreme Court declared that the mandatory life sentence without parole for young offenders went against the Eighth Amendment. And Michigan courts had a hard time determining if this was a procedural or substantive ruling. 

Initially, when applying the Miller ruling to the People v. Carp, 496 Mich 440 (2014) case, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the ruling was procedural. However, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declared that the rule was substantive and applied retroactively when it used the ruling in the Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577, U. S. 190 (2016) case. This distinction changed the fate of many young serious offenders serving life sentences without the possibility of parole in Michigan.

Classify the Rule Correctly or Lose Your Case

You make a fatal mistake if you misapply a rule's classification when litigating a criminal appeal in Michigan. The court might throw out your motion without looking at the core arguments if you argue a procedural change as though it were substantive or vice versa. Clarity and precision greatly contribute to successful appellate practice. And they're even more critical when navigating the procedural-substantive divide.

And understanding this divide well determines how smoothly every stage of appellate and post-conviction litigation will go for you. From framing your arguments to crafting a compelling and winning post-conviction strategy, your comprehension of the divide will be your guiding light. If your argument is based on a new court decision, you must frame the argument as a substantive change to stand a chance on collateral review. 

For MCR 6.500 motions, it's important to understand the bar is set so high. And a new procedural rule is highly unlikely to suffice no matter how unjust its denial is. However, if you can tie the rule to a jurisdictional defect or due process violation there's hope for you. 

Why You Need Mark Linton for Procedural-substantive Navigation 

If you're feeling the weight of a wrongful conviction or sentence, it's time to take a stand. And if you believe that Michigan's new laws could change your fate, you definitely need experienced appellate counsel like Mark Linton who can differentiate between substantive breakthroughs and procedural dead-ends.

Mark understands that your case is a fight for something deeply personal and he specializes in identifying those crucial moments when a change in the law can make all the difference. And he uses that knowledge to go to bat for you through a direct appeal or 6.500 motion. He knows how to push the line between procedural errors and substantive injustice, and win.

He’s always ready and motivated to challenge the unfairness, uncover the truth, and secure a brighter future for you. This is your moment to reclaim hope.

Don't let it pass you by. Contact Mark Linton today to begin fighting for a second chance and find the justice that's been out of reach for far too long.