People v. Cole

• Decision Date: 25 May 2012
• Docket Number: Docket No. 143046.,Calendar No. 3.
• Citation: 491 Mich. 325,817 N.W.2d 497
• Parties: PEOPLE v. COLE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

491 Mich. 325

817 N.W.2d 497

PEOPLE

v.COLE.

Docket No. 143046.

Calendar No. 3.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued March 6, 2012.

Decided May 25, 2012.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Tony Tague, Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles F. Justian, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.

State Appellate Defender (by Anne M. Yantus) for defendant.

Miriam J. Aukerman, Michael J. Steinberg, Kary L. Moss, and Cramer & Minock, PLC, Ann Arbor (by John R. Minock), on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan.

CAVANAGH, J.

This case requires us to determine whether MCR 6.302 and constitutional due process require a trial court to inform a defendant pleading guilty or no contest to first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC–I) or second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC–II) that he or she will be sentenced to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring, if required by MCL 750.520b(2)(d) or MCL 750.520c(2)(b). We answer this question in the affirmative and hold that mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring is part of the sentence itself. Therefore, at the time a defendant enters a guilty or no-contest plea, the trial court must inform the defendant if he or she will be subject to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring. In the absence of this information about a direct and automatic consequence of a defendant's decision to enter a plea and forgo his or her right to a trial, no defendant could be said to have entered an understanding and voluntary plea. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this issue.¹

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Defendant was charged with two counts of CSC–II under MCL 750.520c(1)(a), for sexual acts involving one of his stepdaughters, who was under the age of 13 at the time of the offenses. Pursuant to an evaluation under People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276, 505 N.W.2d 208 (1993), the trial court agreed not to exceed a five-year minimum term of imprisonment for each charge, with the sentences to run concurrently.² At the June 2, 2009 plea hearing, the prosecution read both CSC–II counts and described them as being punishable by up to 15 years in prison and requiring mandatorytesting for sexually transmitted diseases. Defendant indicated to the trial court that he understood the CSC–II charges and that he faced a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. The trial court stated that it had agreed to a five-year concurrent cap on the minimum sentence, but that it had made no other agreement with regard to the plea or the sentence. The trial court never informed defendant that, if sentenced to prison, he would be subject to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring.

On June 30, 2009, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 5 to 15 years on each count, in accordance with the Cobbs evaluation. In addition—and as required by MCL 750.520c(2)(b)—the court ordered that defendant be placed on lifetime electronic monitoring following his release from prison. ³

Defendant moved to amend the judgment of sentence or permit withdrawal of his plea, arguing in part that the failure to advise him of the mandatory penalty of lifetime electronic monitoring rendered his plea involuntary. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant sought leave to appeal. In a split opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded to allow defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. People v. Cole, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 15, 2011 (Docket No. 298893), 2011 WL 895243. The majority held that mandatory lifetime monitoring was not a collateral consequence of the plea or sentence, but was part of the sentence itself. We granted the prosecution's application for leave to appeal. 490 Mich. 869, 802 N.W.2d 613 (2011).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

A trial court's decision on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v.Lang, 381 Mich. 393, 398–399, 162 N.W.2d 143 (1968). The proper interpretation and application of a court rule is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Haliw v. Sterling Hts., 471 Mich. 700, 704, 691 N.W.2d 753 (2005). To the extent that this case implicates constitutional issues, they are likewise reviewed de novo. People v. Armstrong, 490 Mich. 281, 289, 806 N.W.2d 676 (2011).

We also review de novo issues of statutory interpretation. Klooster v. City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich. 289, 295, 795 N.W.2d 578 (2011). Our primary task when interpreting statutes is to “give effect to the Legislature's intent, focusing first on the statute's plain language.” Id. at 296, 795 N.W.2d 578. If the statutory language is unambiguous, we must conclude that the Legislature “intended the meaning clearly expressed” and “[n]o further judicial construction is required or permitted.” Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich. 230, 236, 596 N.W.2d 119 (1999).

III. ANALYSIS

A. MCR 6.302

Guilty- and no-contest-plea proceedings are governed by MCR 6.302. ⁴ The first sentence of subrule (A) provides that a “court may not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere unless it is convinced that the plea is understanding, voluntary, and accurate.” MCR 6.302(A). The second sentence mandates that the court “place the defendant or defendants under oath and personally carry out subrules (B)–(E).” Id. Subrules (B) through (D), in turn, individually address the “understanding, voluntary, and accurate” requirements of subrule (A), and subrule (E) addresses “Additional Inquiries,” including the requirement that the court ask the attorneys “whether the court has complied with subrules (B)–(D)....”

The prosecution argues that a trial court's compliance with subrules (B) through (D) equates to full compliance with the “understanding, voluntary, and accurate” requirements of subrule (A). In regard to whether a trial court must inform a defendant at a plea hearing that he or she will be subject to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring, the prosecution argues that because subrule (B)(2) only requires that the court inform the defendant of “the maximum possible prison sentence for the offense and any mandatory minimum sentence required by law,” MCR 6.302(B)(2), the trial court did not err when it informed defendant at the plea hearing of only the statutory maximum term of imprisonment and the minimum term the court had previously agreed to, yet did not inform defendant that he would be subject to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring.⁵

While we agree that MCR 6.302(B) through (E) constitute explicit requirements imposed on a trial court conducting a plea hearing, the broader directive of MCR 6.302(A) that the plea must be “understanding, voluntary, and accurate” might, in a given proceeding, encompass more than the explicit requirements of the remainder of the court rule. Specifically, the “understanding, voluntary, and accurate” components of subrule (A) are premised on the requirements of constitutional due process, which might not be entirely satisfied by compliance with subrules (B) through (D). Therefore, regardless of the explicit wording of the subrules, a court may be required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to inform a defendant that mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring is a consequence of his or her guilty or no-contest plea.

B. THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS

A no-contest or a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of several constitutional rights, including the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to a trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accusers. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); People v. Jaworski, 387 Mich. 21, 28–29, 194 N.W.2d 868 (1972). ⁶ For a plea to constitute an effective waiver of these rights, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the plea be voluntary and knowing. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969); see also North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (noting that a plea must be “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant”). In Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), the United States Supreme Court held that “[w]aivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” In assessing voluntariness, the Court stated that a defendant entering a plea must be “fully aware of the direct consequences” of the plea. Id. at 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, quoting Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571, 572 n. 2 (C.A.5, 1957) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Given the difficulty of determining which of the numerous consequences of a conviction are encompassed within the meaning of “direct consequences,” a distinction has developed in the post-Brady caselaw between “direct” and “collateral” consequences of a plea. See, e.g., Meyer v. Branker, 506 F.3d 358, 367–368 (C.A.4, 2007) (“For a guilty plea to be constitutionally valid, a defendant must be made aware of all the direct, but not the collateral, consequences of his plea.”); Steele v. Murphy, 365 F.3d 14, 17 (C.A.1, 2004). While courts have relied on different tests to distinguish direct from collateral consequences, the prevailing distinction relied on by a majority of courts “turns on whether the result represents a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.” Cuthrell v. Patuxent Institution Director, 475 F.2d 1364, 1366 (C.A.4, 1973); see also Roberts, The mythical divide between collateral and direct consequences of criminal convictions: Involuntary commitment of “ sexually violent predators ”, 93 Minn. L.R 670, 689–693 (2008) (discussing the three main tests...