Pg. 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE SUPREME COURT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN No. 137830

Plaintiff-Appellee, COA No. 273407

V Emmet CC No. 06-2597-FC

JOEL NATHAN DUFRESNE

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________

James R. Linderman (P23088)

Emmet County Prosecutor

200 Division Street

Petoskey, MI 49770

(231) 348- 1725

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joel Nathan Dufresne, 257173

Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility

1576 West Bluewater Highway

Ionia, MI 48846

In Pro Per

_______________________________________

MOTION FOR REHEARING

NOTICE OF HEARING: This pro per motion for rehearing will be heard on Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

NOW COMES Joel Nathan Dufresne, In Pro Per, and moves this Court for rehearing pursuant to MCR 7.313(D) for the following grounds:

1. Defendant-Appellant is in fact innocent, the convictions in this case constitute a miscarriage of justice, and the officer-in-charge gave testimony (Trial Transcript Volume 2, hereafter “T2” pp.117-121) of prosecutorial misconduct by Eric Kaiser (P30457) similar to other serious improprieties by Eric Kaiser (see Attachment A)

2. The convictions in this case rest entirely upon the trial court’s determination that Defendant lacks credibility (Trial Court 5/22/2008 Opinion, p.8; COA Opinion, p.3) and the Court of Appeals finding that the sole exculpatory evidence in this case is Defendant’s unsupported testimony (COA Opinion, pp. 2-3)

3. Following the 10/14/08 appellate affirmation of Defendant’s convictions, Defendant has received, through a non-party, suppressed exculpatory police reports and other exculpatory documents which strongly support Defendant’s credibility and verify the testimony of Defendant (see Attachment B)

4. On 3/25/09 Defendant filed a pro per motion to remand due to receiving some suppressed police reports, and on 4/14/09 Defendant received additional suppressed exculpatory documents which Defendant then attached to a pro per defense motion for preemptory reversal. The suppressed exculpatory documents made available through a non-party are not the whole of the exculpatory evidence withheld by the prosecution but the available suppressed exculpatory documents do constitute undeniable substantiation of prosecutorial misconduct directly affecting the Defendant’s convictions (see Attachment B)

5. On 4/27/09 Supreme Court Clerk Corbin Davis received Defendant’s pro per motion for preemptory reversal, noticed for hearing on 5/5/09.

6. On 4/28/09 the Michigan Supreme Court Clerk’s Office ordered Defendant’s pro per motion for preemptory reversal returned because it arrived too late to be considered.

7. On 4/28/09, on order of this Court, Defendant’s pro per application for leave to appeal the 10/14/08 judgment of the Court of Appeals was considered and was DENIED because this Court was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court, and Defendant’s pro per motion to remand was DENIED without findings or explanation.

8. The prosecutorial misconduct in discovery violation in this case is well-documented (see Attachment B) and so highly material to the dispositve issuse of Defendant’s credibility (COA Opinion, p.3) that the refusal of this Court to either review the questions presented by Defendnat or grant other relief in lieu of granting leave to appeal encourages State prosecutors (see Attatchment A) to suppress exculpatory evidence until after appellate review and penalizes Defendant for being subjected to egregious prosecutorial misconduct. It is in the State’s interests of maintaining a sound and reputable judicial system to address the undeniable miscarriage of justice in this case immediately; Mich. Const. 1963, Amends. 5,6, and 14.

9. Defendant-Appellant adopts herein by reference the attached brief in support of this motion for rehearing.

WHEREFORE, Defendant-Appellant prays that this Court rehear the pro per application for leave to appeal, grant such other relief as justice requires, or issue findings on why relief could not be appropriate.

Defendant-Appellant affirms and avows that the above facts and circumstances are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.

________________________ ______________________________

Date JOEL NATHAN DUFRESNE

Defendant-Appellant In Pro Per

*Attachments(1) is part of Attachment A

Next Page