When a criminal conviction has already occurred, choosing an attorney to handle an appeal is fundamentally different from choosing a lawyer to handle a case at trial. A criminal appeal in Michigan requires a Michigan criminal appellate attorney who can examine a complicated trial record, identify legal errors that may have affected the outcome, research constitutional and statutory issues, develop persuasive appellate arguments, write compelling briefs, and present those arguments effectively to appellate judges.
Experience matters.
But not all “appellate experience” is the same.
For more than two decades, Michigan attorney James E. Czarnecki II has devoted his legal career to criminal defense, including extensive work involving criminal appeals and post-conviction litigation in Michigan and federal courts. His appellate background began early in his legal career and includes experience writing appellate briefs, researching constitutional issues, reviewing trial transcripts, litigating post-conviction claims, and appearing before Michigan appellate courts.
His work demonstrates an important principle for anyone looking for a Michigan criminal appellate attorney:
A strong appellate lawyer does more than file an appeal. A strong appellate lawyer knows how to find the legal issue that can change the case—and knows how to persuade a court to act on it.
What Makes a Strong Michigan Criminal Appellate Attorney?
A criminal appeal is not simply another trial.
The appellate court generally works from the existing record. The attorney must therefore understand what happened at the trial level, determine what was legally significant, identify the applicable standard of review, and explain why the error warrants relief.
That requires a different skill set from simply being a good trial lawyer.
A strong Michigan criminal appellate attorney should be able to:
- Carefully analyze transcripts and the existing record.
- Identify constitutional and statutory errors.
- Recognize ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Determine whether an issue was preserved or must be addressed under a different standard of review.
- Research Michigan statutes, court rules, and appellate precedent.
- Distinguish unfavorable cases.
- Develop a coherent legal theory rather than simply list complaints about the trial.
- Write persuasive appellate briefs.
- Present focused oral arguments.
- Recognize when a case warrants a motion for remand, evidentiary hearing, new trial, resentencing, or other relief.
- Understand how trial-level errors can become significant appellate issues.
James Czarnecki’s career has involved these aspects of appellate practice from the beginning.
James Czarnecki’s Appellate Experience Began Early in His Legal Career
James Czarnecki graduated from Wayne State University Law School in 2004, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Moot Court program. While in law school, he interned with the State Appellate Defender Office, the Federal Defender Office, and the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.
After law school, he worked in criminal appellate practice and developed experience reviewing criminal cases from an appellate perspective. His professional background also included working with experienced appellate attorney Gerald Lorence, where Czarnecki developed substantial experience in researching, writing, and arguing criminal appeals.
That early experience was important because appellate advocacy is a specialized discipline.
A lawyer handling a criminal appeal must be comfortable spending substantial amounts of time inside a transcript and the law. The strongest appellate arguments are often not obvious from a quick review of the case. They emerge only after the attorney reconstructs what happened, compares the record against the applicable law, and recognizes a legal error that may have been overlooked at trial.
Czarnecki has continued that appellate work throughout his career. His firm reports appellate results involving the Michigan Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court, and federal courts, including cases resulting in convictions being overturned, new trials being granted, and sentences being reduced or modified.
The Gonzalez-Raymundo Case: Finding the Issue Others Missed
One of the clearest examples of the kind of appellate advocacy that matters is People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo, 308 Mich App 175; 862 NW2d 657 (2014).
The case involved Elias Gonzalez-Raymundo, who had been convicted by a jury of four counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment.
But the important appellate issue was not simply whether the evidence supported the convictions.
The case involved Gonzalez-Raymundo’s ability to understand and participate in his own trial.
Gonzalez-Raymundo’s primary language was Spanish. An interpreter had been provided at earlier proceedings. Before trial, however, defense counsel asked to proceed without simultaneous interpretation because of concern that jurors might react negatively to hearing Spanish. Counsel proposed explaining the proceedings to the defendant during breaks instead.
The trial court accepted that approach without personally obtaining a knowing and informed waiver from Gonzalez-Raymundo.
He was subsequently convicted.
The appellate litigation focused on whether proceeding without simultaneous translation violated his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals granted a remand for a Ginther hearing concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. Following that hearing, the trial court granted a new trial because it had failed to provide an interpreter and concluded that the defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated. The prosecution then appealed that decision.
This is where the importance of appellate advocacy becomes apparent.
The Case Was About More Than an Interpreter
At first glance, an argument concerning an interpreter might appear to be a relatively narrow procedural issue.
It was not.
The Court of Appeals recognized that the problem implicated fundamental constitutional protections.
The court explained that a defendant who cannot understand the proceedings is effectively prevented from being meaningfully present at trial. The court further recognized that lack of simultaneous translation can interfere with the defendant’s ability to confront witnesses and participate in the defense.
The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision granting a new trial.
The significance of the case went beyond the individual defendant.
Gonzalez-Raymundo was published in the Michigan Appeals Reports, making the decision precedential. Michigan courts have subsequently relied upon the decision in addressing the constitutional and procedural rights of defendants who require interpreters.
For example, the Michigan Court of Appeals later relied upon Gonzalez-Raymundo in People v. Hoang, explaining that the failure to provide necessary simultaneous interpretation without a valid waiver implicates state and federal constitutional protections.
Michigan courts have continued to cite Gonzalez-Raymundo when addressing interpreter issues and a criminal defendant’s ability to meaningfully participate in a trial.
That is an important distinction.
A successful appellate lawyer is not merely looking for something that went wrong. The lawyer must identify an error that the law recognizes as significant and develop the argument necessary to obtain meaningful relief.
The Impact of the Gonzalez-Raymundo Case on Michigan Law
The importance of Gonzalez-Raymundo has extended beyond the facts of the original case. Michigan appellate courts have continued to rely upon its principles, including the published decision in People v. Hoang, where the Court of Appeals expressly relied upon Gonzalez-Raymundo in analyzing the constitutional implications of interpreter services and a defendant’s ability to communicate with counsel. Michigan’s current criminal-procedure benchbook likewise continues to cite Gonzalez-Raymundo when instructing courts concerning interpreters, meaningful participation, due process, confrontation, and a defendant’s constitutional right to understand the proceedings.
Ultimately, Gonzalez-Raymundo is important because it changed the way Michigan courts must think about language barriers in criminal cases. An interpreter is not simply a courtroom convenience. For a defendant who cannot adequately understand English, interpretation can be essential to the constitutional fairness of the proceeding itself. The case therefore provides an important safeguard against convictions obtained when a defendant was technically present in the courtroom but was not meaningfully present because he or she could not understand what was happening. It remains an important precedent for Michigan criminal defense attorneys evaluating trial errors, constitutional violations, waiver issues, and potential grounds for appellate or post-conviction relief.
Why Gonzalez-Raymundo Demonstrates Appellate Skill
The Gonzalez-Raymundo litigation illustrates several characteristics of effective appellate advocacy.
1. Reading the Record for Legal Significance
The facts of a criminal case can be overwhelming. A transcript may contain hundreds or thousands of pages.
An appellate attorney must determine which facts matter legally.
In Gonzalez-Raymundo, the critical issue involved what happened before and during trial concerning interpretation, the defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings, and whether the defendant personally and knowingly waived the right to an interpreter.
That required careful attention to the record.
2. Identifying a Constitutional Issue
The argument was not simply that the trial court made a procedural mistake.
The issue was connected to due process, the right to be present, confrontation, and meaningful participation in one’s own defense.
The Court of Appeals recognized the constitutional dimension of the problem.
That is precisely the type of transformation an appellate attorney must be able to make: turning facts in a transcript into a legally cognizable claim for relief.
3. Understanding the Importance of Waiver
One of the central questions was whether the defendant had personally and knowingly waived his right to simultaneous interpretation.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court could not simply rely on defense counsel’s decision to proceed without simultaneous interpretation. The circumstances required a proper waiver by the defendant himself.
That distinction mattered.
Without it, the constitutional protection could effectively be lost based upon an attorney’s decision rather than the defendant’s own informed choice.
4. Understanding the Relationship Between Trial and Appellate Advocacy
The case also demonstrates why an appellate lawyer must understand trial practice.
Appellate lawyers work from what happened in the trial court. They must understand hearings, objections, counsel’s decisions, jury selection, evidentiary rulings, constitutional rights, and the significance of what was—and was not—placed on the record.
Czarnecki’s experience has included both sides of that equation: extensive trial litigation and appellate review of criminal cases.
His firm reports that he has litigated more than a thousand cases and has handled criminal matters ranging from misdemeanors to homicide, as well as criminal appeals in state and federal courts.
Appellate Advocacy Requires More Than Legal Research
Legal research is essential, but research alone does not win an appeal.
A Michigan criminal appellate attorney has to decide which arguments deserve the court’s attention.
That means separating strong issues from weak ones, identifying the governing authority, explaining why the existing law applies, and showing the appellate court what remedy is appropriate.
Czarnecki’s appellate practice has involved precisely this type of record-based legal analysis.
Brief Writing Matters
The written appellate brief is often the most important advocacy tool in an appeal.
Unlike a trial, where evidence is presented through witnesses and exhibits, an appeal requires the lawyer to persuade judges primarily through the record and the law.
The brief must tell the court:
What happened?
What was legally wrong?
Why does the law require relief?
What should the appellate court do about it?
James Czarnecki’s early career in appellate practice helped develop precisely this skill.
His professional biography describes a career that began with appellate work and continued through Michigan Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court, and federal litigation. His firm specifically identifies brief writing and analysis as central components of his criminal defense practice.
Oral Argument Is Another Critical Skill
A written brief may establish the legal framework, but appellate advocacy does not necessarily end when the brief is filed.
When oral argument is granted, the attorney must be prepared to answer questions from judges who have already studied the case.
That requires more than memorizing the brief.
An effective appellate advocate must understand the case deeply enough to address difficult questions, concede points that do not matter, defend the important ones, and bring the discussion back to the legal issue that controls the outcome.
Czarnecki’s appellate experience includes personally appearing for oral argument in the Michigan Court of Appeals. In the published criminal case described by the firm, he wrote the brief and argued the matter before the Court of Appeals after the prosecution appealed the trial court’s decision granting his client a new trial.
A Strong Appellate Attorney Must Know How to Find What Others Miss
Perhaps the most important quality of an appellate lawyer is the ability to see something in the record that others did not recognize.
Czarnecki’s practice has repeatedly involved transcript review and legal analysis designed to identify errors that occurred during the original proceedings.
His firm’s reported cases include an appeal involving cocaine delivery and manufacture convictions where transcript review revealed significant problems concerning the source of information that led police to the defendant and a previously undisclosed hearing. Czarnecki developed the appellate arguments and obtained a Court of Appeals decision vacating the convictions and granting a new trial.
The firm also reports an appellate case involving three convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon. After reviewing the case, Czarnecki identified a legal problem with the convictions and argued the issue before the Michigan Court of Appeals. The prosecutor agreed with the argument at oral argument, and the convictions were vacated.
Another reported appeal involved an armed robbery conviction in which Czarnecki identified an error in the scoring of the sentencing guidelines. The Court of Appeals agreed and remanded the case for resentencing, resulting in a reduced sentence.
These cases illustrate an important point:
Appellate advocacy is often about finding the legal leverage hidden inside the record.
Why Experience in Both Trial and Appellate Practice Matters
The best criminal appellate representation does not exist in a vacuum.
A Michigan criminal appellate lawyer who understands criminal trials can better recognize the significance of what occurred at trial.
Czarnecki has spent his career handling both.
His experience includes jury and bench trials, evidentiary hearings, preliminary examinations, motions, constitutional challenges, sentencing proceedings, appeals, and post-conviction litigation. His firm reports successful results involving acquittals, dismissals, new trials, overturned convictions, and reduced sentences.
That combination can be particularly important when reviewing an old conviction.
The question is not merely whether the defendant lost.
The question is why the defendant lost—and whether something legally significant happened that provides a basis for relief.
What Should You Look for When Hiring a Michigan Criminal Appellate Attorney?
If you or someone you love is considering a criminal appeal, do not limit your search to whether an attorney advertises “appeals.”
Ask what the attorney has actually done.
Look for an attorney who has:
Actual appellate experience.
Has the attorney personally handled criminal appeals rather than simply referring them to someone else?
Brief-writing experience.
Has the attorney written appellate briefs in serious criminal cases?
Oral-argument experience.
Has the attorney appeared before the Michigan Court of Appeals or Michigan Supreme Court?
Record-review experience.
Can the attorney analyze a lengthy trial transcript and identify potentially reversible error?
Constitutional-law experience.
Does the attorney understand ineffective assistance of counsel, due process, confrontation, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and other constitutional issues?
Post-conviction experience.
Does the attorney understand that some cases require a motion for relief from judgment, evidentiary hearing, or other post-conviction procedure rather than a conventional direct appeal?
Results that demonstrate substantive advocacy.
Has the attorney actually obtained new trials, overturned convictions, resentencing, dismissals, or other meaningful relief?
These are better questions than simply asking how many years someone has been practicing law.
James Czarnecki: A Career Built Around Criminal Defense and Appellate Advocacy
James Czarnecki’s appellate background is not a recent addition to an otherwise unrelated practice.
It has been part of his criminal-defense career from the beginning.
He developed appellate experience through early work with criminal appeals, including his work with experienced appellate attorney Gerald Lorence. He has continued handling criminal appeals throughout his career while simultaneously developing extensive trial experience.
That combination gives him an important perspective: he understands both how criminal cases are built at the trial level and how those cases can be challenged on appeal.
His appellate work has extended to the Michigan Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court, and federal courts. Reported results include overturned convictions, new trials, resentencing, and other forms of relief.
And cases such as People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo demonstrate why appellate experience is about more than simply knowing how to file an appeal.
It is about finding the issue.
It is about understanding the constitutional significance of the issue.
It is about building the legal argument.
It is about writing the brief.
It is about standing before an appellate court and defending the argument under questioning.
And ultimately, it is about giving a defendant another opportunity to have a potentially unjust conviction or sentence examined under the law.
If You Are Considering a Michigan Criminal Appeal or 6.500 Motion
A conviction does not necessarily end the legal process. How to file a criminal appeal.
Depending upon the circumstances, a defendant may have options involving a direct appeal, application for leave to appeal, motion for relief from judgment, evidentiary hearing, motion for a new trial, resentencing, or other post-conviction remedies.
But appellate deadlines and procedural requirements can be complicated, and not every potential issue will provide a legal basis for relief.
That is why the choice of a Michigan criminal appellate attorney matters.
James Czarnecki and Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC have built their criminal-defense practice around litigation, legal research, constitutional advocacy, trial representation, appellate practice, and post-conviction litigation.
If you believe a conviction was the result of a serious legal error, ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional violation, improper evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, sentencing error, or another significant legal problem, the case deserves a careful review of the record and the law.
The first question is not simply whether you lost your case. The question is whether the law gives you a path to challenge what happened.
Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC can review the circumstances of a Michigan criminal conviction and evaluate whether an appeal or post-conviction remedy may be available.
Call Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC at (586) 718-2345 to discuss your case and determine what appellate options may exist.
Past results do not guarantee future results. Every criminal case is different, and whether appellate relief is available depends on the facts, record, procedural history, and applicable law.