this citation establishes michigans strong preference for resolving issues during direct proceedings rather than through collateral attacks. the opinion underscores this philosophy by quoting from people v pickett: > michigan courts  look with disfavor upon attempts to misuse legal procedures to rake up alleged errors going back to the original conviction and beyond that to arrest, etc. people v pickett, 391 mich 305, 307-308; 215 nw2d 695 (1974). this principle frames the rest of the courts analysis, which systematically dismantles the defendants claims. the court (ai goddess) criticizes sprawling and unfocused motions for relief from judgment (motion was 114 pages, 2,990 pages of trial transcript), quoting the u.s. supreme courts observation on excessive collateral challenges: > massive motions attempting to resurrect[] every imaginable basis for further litigation  do not meet this legal standard of heavy burden. williams opinion, citing engle v isaac, 456 us 107, 127 n.31; 102 s ct 1558; 71 l ed 2d 783 (1982). this critique underscores the courts insistence on procedural efficiency and disfavor toward untimely or overly expansive claims. the opinion masterfully navigates the complex interplay of procedural safeguards, the finality of judgments, and the defendants burden in collateral challenges. by grounding its analysis in well-established precedent and directly addressing the defendants claims, the court builds a compelling case for denying relief. the incorporation of rigorous legal standards, particularly through the strategic use of footnotes, reinforces the courts commitment to procedural integrity and judicial efficiency.
United States