Motion to withdraw plea; In re Carey; MCR 3.941(A) & (D); In re Zelzack; People v. Thew; MCR 3.941(C)(1)(a) – (c); MCR 3.941(C)(2)-(4); Failure to support a claim; Mudge v. Macomb Cnty.

Holding that respondent-juvenile did not show any error, plain or otherwise, in the trial court’s acceptance of his plea of admission, the court affirmed. He was originally charged as an adult with armed robbery. At the preliminary exam, the district court reduced the charge to unarmed robbery. The prosecution then charged him as a juvenile with unarmed robbery. Under a plea agreement, he entered a plea of admission to an added count of larceny from the person, in exchange for dismissal of the unarmed robbery charge. He claimed that he was entitled to withdraw his plea because it “was given through ignorance, fear or inadvertence.” However, the record showed that the trial court fully complied with the requirements of MCR 3.941(C). It endeavored to make sure his plea was “understandably made by advising him, in accordance with MCR 3.941(C)(1)(a) – (c), of the offense charged and the offense to which he was entering a plea, the different possible dispositions if the court accepts his plea, the consequences of waiving his right to trial and entering a plea, and the various rights he would be waiving by entering a plea.” In response to its questioning, “respondent acknowledged that he understood each of the matters.” The trial court also made sure that his plea was “voluntarily made by questioning respondent, in accordance with MCR 3.941(C)(2), to confirm the terms of the plea agreement, and by obtaining respondent’s agreement that he wanted to enter a plea in accordance with the plea agreement, that no promises or threats had been made to force him to enter a plea, and that he was entering a plea of his own free will.” Further, it made sure that his “plea was an accurate one, as required by MCR 3.941(C)(3), by questioning” him to establish factual support for a finding that he committed the offense of larceny from the person. Finally, the trial court established support for his “plea, in accordance with MCR 3.941(C)(4), by inquiring of his mother, who acknowledged that she saw no reason why the court should not accept respondent’s plea. Respondent’s counsel expressed satisfaction with the plea proceeding, including the factual basis for” the plea. There was no record support for his claim that his plea was given “through ignorance, fear or inadvertence.”