People v. Blanton
| Decision Date | 30 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 328690. |
| Citation | 894 N.W.2d 613,317 Mich.App. 107 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BLANTON |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, William A. Forsyth, Prosecuting Attorney, James K. Benison, Chief Appellate Attorney, and Gary A. Moore, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by Christine A. Pagac ) for defendant.
Before: SAAD, P.J., and BORRELLO and GADOLA, JJ.
The prosecution appeals by leave granted1 the June 19, 2015 circuit court order granting defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to charges of armed robbery, MCL 750.529 ; assault with intent to do great bodily harm, MCL 750.84 ; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b, on the basis that the plea proceeding was defective. The trial court denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration on July 24, 2015. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
Defendant was originally charged with one count each of assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83 ; assault with intent to rob while armed, MCL 750.89 ; being a felon in possession of a firearm (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f ; and felony-firearm in connection with events that occurred on May 19, 2014, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was charged as a second-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.10. Defendant was bound over for trial following a preliminary examination.
The record reflects that defendant was originally offered a plea deal that would have allowed him to plead guilty to the charges of assault with intent to commit murder, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm in exchange for the prosecution's dropping the assault with intent to rob while armed charge and the second-offense habitual offender enhancement. However, at a status conference on July 16, 2014, defendant rejected that plea offer.
Defendant was subsequently offered a second plea deal that would allow him to plead guilty on an amended information to charges of armed robbery, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and felony-firearm, in exchange for the prosecution's dropping the assault with intent to commit murder, assault with intent to rob while armed, and felon-in-possession charges as well as the second-offense habitual offender enhancement. Additionally, the prosecution agreed that the sentencing guidelines range would be 171 to 285 months' imprisonment. Defendant expressed his desire to accept that plea offer.
A plea proceeding was held on September 22, 2014, during which the terms of the second plea offer were placed on the record. The trial court placed defendant under oath. Thereafter, the trial court advised defendant that because he was on probation at the time he allegedly committed the charged offenses, he could be punished "up to the statutory maximum for whatever [he was] on probation for," and that any such sentence would "run concurrently, meaning at the same time, as any counts in this case except for the felony firearm." Defendant expressed his understanding of these facts. The trial court then advised defendant that upon a conviction for armed robbery, he faced a maximum possible penalty of life imprisonment. Defendant expressed his understanding. The trial court further advised defendant that upon a conviction for assault with intent to do great bodily harm, he faced a maximum possible penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. Without asking if defendant understood this fact, the trial court then advised defendant that he was also charged with felony-firearm, but did not advise defendant of the maximum possible penalty for this offense or the fact that the penalty would run consecutive to the other sentences. The trial court then simply asked defendant if he "underst[ood] the nature of the charges." Defendant responded affirmatively.
The trial court next advised defendant of the rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty, as well as the fact that once the plea was accepted, defendant did "not have any automatic right to withdraw [the] plea or to change [his] mind." Defendant expressed his understanding. Defendant further acknowledged that he was not forced or threatened to enter the plea. After satisfying itself that the pertinent information had been discussed, the trial court asked defendant, "To the charge of armed robbery, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and felony firearm on May 19th, 2014, how do you plead; guilty or not guilty?" Defendant responded, "Guilty, Your Honor." After eliciting a factual basis for the plea,2 the trial court found that defendant's plea was "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made" and accepted the plea. The trial court then adjudicated defendant guilty.3
Sentencing was held on October 20, 2014. At the outset of the hearing, defendant entered a guilty plea to his pending probation violation. Ultimately, defendant was sentenced to 5 to 25 years' imprisonment for the probation violation, 5 to 10 years' imprisonment for the assault with intent to do great bodily harm conviction, 20 to 50 years' imprisonment for the armed robbery conviction, and 2 years' imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. The former three sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to the felony-firearm sentence.
After he was sentenced, defendant requested and was appointed appellate counsel. Then, on April 17, 2015, defendant, through his appellate counsel, moved in the trial court to withdraw his guilty plea. As the basis for withdrawing his plea, defendant argued that his plea was not knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily entered because during the plea proceeding the trial court failed to advise him of the maximum possible penalty he faced for conviction of the felony-firearm charge and that the felony-firearm sentence would run consecutively to the other sentences. Defendant contended that the failure to so advise him violated MCR 6.302(B)(2). Accordingly, because there was "an error in the plea proceeding," defendant argued that he was entitled under MCR 6.310(C) to withdraw his plea.
In response to defendant's motion, the prosecution conceded that the trial court had erred by failing to advise defendant during the plea proceeding of the maximum possible penalty for the felony-firearm offense and that the sentence for that offense would be consecutive to the other sentences. However, while the prosecution conceded that the error entitled defendant to withdraw his guilty plea to the felony-firearm charge, it disputed the notion that defendant was entitled to withdraw "all his pleas to the charged offenses." Instead, the prosecution argued that because defendant had been properly advised regarding the charges of armed robbery and assault with intent to commit great bodily harm, and because any failure to inform defendant regarding the felony-firearm charge was "extrinsic" to those other charges, defendant was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea to those other charges. Therefore, the prosecution requested that defendant's motion to withdraw be denied as it pertained to the convictions for armed robbery and assault with intent to commit great bodily harm.
A hearing on defendant's motion was held on June 19, 2015. At the outset, the trial court recognized that there was "no dispute that the plea proceeding was defective in some way because [defendant] was not informed about the ... penalty regarding the felony firearm" charge. As to the issue whether defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea in total or only with respect to the felony-firearm charge, the trial court agreed with defendant's position that the plea agreement was a "comprehensive deal" and was not divisible:
I agree with the defendant in this case. A plea agreement, I think, is a comprehensive deal. There's a plea—Michigan Court Rule 6.310(C) controls this case—or controls this issue. If there's an error in the plea proceeding, it allows the withdrawal of the plea. And I do find the defendant's position persuasive that pleas are comprehensive deals. You can't just take one part out because it's a negotiated process. So, [defendant] will be allowed to withdraw his entire plea....
The trial court subsequently entered two written orders on June 19, 2015. Specifically, in one order the trial court granted defendant's motion to withdraw his plea in full. In the other order, the trial court vacated the judgment of sentence and reopened the case for further proceedings.
The prosecution moved the trial court for reconsideration on July 10, 2015. As a threshold matter, the prosecution argued that the trial court erred by simply granting defendant's motion to withdraw his plea instead of following the procedure set forth in MCR 6.310(C), which provides that "[i]f the trial court determines that there was an error in the plea proceeding that would entitle the defendant to have the plea set aside, the court must give the advice or make the inquiries necessary to rectify the error and then give the defendant the opportunity to elect to allow the plea and sentence to stand or to withdraw the plea." According to the prosecution, by granting the motion without even asking defendant what his preference was, the trial court left open the possibility that defendant could be tried and convicted of all counts (including those dropped as part of the plea) and sentenced to a harsher punishment, only to then insist that he be reoffered the plea deal because he never rejected it on the record. Therefore, the prosecution contended that, at a minimum, a hearing needed to be held at which defendant could be advised of his rights and allowed to choose whether to withdraw his plea or allow it to stand. Next, as it pertained to his right to withdraw the plea, the prosecution maintained that the trial court had erred by allowing defendant to withdraw his entire plea; rather, "the proper remedy" was ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Warren
...did not "require advice as to other potential sentence consequences such as consecutive sentencing") with People v. Blanton , 317 Mich. App. 107, 119-120, 894 N.W.2d 613 (2016) (holding that the court was required to inform the defendant that he was subject to a two-year mandatory consecuti......
-
People v. Young
...the court rules, once the trial court has accepted a plea, there is no absolute right for the defendant to withdraw his plea. Blanton, 317 Mich.App. at 117, citing MCR Under MCR 6.310(A), "[t]he defendant has a right to withdraw any plea until the court accepts it on the record." Thereafter......
-
People v. Pointer-Bey
...to be voluntary and understanding, the defendant must be fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea." People v. Blanton , 317 Mich.App. 107, 118, 894 N.W.2d 613 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The penalty to be imposed is the most obvious direct consequence of a conv......
-
People v. Coleman
...there was a defect in the plea-taking process. People v. Brown , 492 Mich. 684, 693, 822 N.W.2d 208 (2012) ; People v. Blanton , 317 Mich. App. 107, 118, 894 N.W.2d 613 (2016). The failure to accurately inform a defendant of the consequences of his or her plea may constitute a defect in the......