1. Was the new standard from People v. Stevens,
498 Mich. 162, 869 N.W.2d 233 (2015), for determining
whether a trial judge exhibited improper partiality, a
decision by the Michigan Supreme Court interpreting
the federal Constitution?

2. When a state court of last resort interprets
the federal Constitution and, later, in a collateral
review of a state conviction, has cause to determine
whether that interpretation is a "new rule" deserving
retroactive application under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S.
288 (1989), must that state court follow the guidelines
set by the United States Supreme Court in Teague and
its progeny for applying the new rule retroactively?

3. Should this Court extend the holding in
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016) and
require, as a matter of constitutional law, state collateral review courts to give retroactive effect to new
watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the
fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal
proceeding?

Was the new standard from People v. Stevens a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court interpreting the federal Constitution?