Pg. 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE SUPREME COURT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN No. 137830

Plaintiff-Appellee, COA No. 273407

V. LC 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 LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Defendant-Appellant states:

1. This is an appeal of right from a conviction after trial in a criminal case.

2. Defendant-Appellant, in pro per, has no representation and is a layman of the law.

3. Defendant-Appellant has filed a pro per application for leave to appeal in this Court, which is not yet decided.

4. On 2/19/09 Defendant received relevant documents unavailable to the defense since trial.

5. ON the basis of some documents received on 2/19/09 Defendant is compelled to supplement the application for leave to appeal, with those documents among the attachments to the pro per supplemental brief.

6. Defendant does not seek to replace the pro per application for leave to appeal already filed. Instead, Defendant submits the supplemental brief attached, to be read after the pro per application for leave to appeal and considered with it.

7. The supplemental brief attached contains no revisions or substitutions, only additional arguments for issues already filed in the pro per application for leave to appeal. The supplementation is not confusing, the supplemental brief cites the application for leave to appeal as an external document and clearly specifies each point in the application for leave to appeal from which each supplemental argument continues.

8. Although Defendant’s pro per application for leave to appeal ends at page number 50, it does not consist of 50 actual pages because Defendant used the pro per form with unneeded pages (5, 6,8,12 and 13) removed, and the pages 10 and 11 are not counted against the page limit because they are ruled as independent documents (motion for waiver of fees and costs, affidavit of indigency, and proof of service). Therefore, the pro per application for leave to appeal and pro per supplemental brief together do not exceed the page limit.

9. The issues in this case are complicated and important to the maintenance of a sound judicial system.

10. Defendant adopts herein by reference the attached pro per brief in support of this motion for leave to file supplemental brief.

WHEREFORE, Defendant-Appellant prays that this Honorable Court permit him to file the attached pro per supplemental brief to Defendant-Appellant’s application for leave to appeal without striking the pro per application for leave to appeal already filed with this Court.

The undersigned, Joel Nathan Dufresne, Defendant-Appellant in Pro Per, affirms and avows that the above facts are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.

_____2/23/09______ ______________________________

JOEL NATHAN DUFRESNE

Defendant-Appellant In Pro Per

Next Page