The Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD); Article III(a); When the 180-day period began to run; Waiver; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failing to raise a meritless objection; Sentence credit; MCL 769.11b; Whether defendant was entitled to specific performance of the trial court’s promise to give him credit for the time he was incarcerated in Ohio before coming to Michigan; Remedy for failure to abide by a Cobbs evaluation

Noting that defendant waived his claim of an IAD violation by pleading guilty, the court added that there was no violation of his rights under the IAD. Further, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless objection. The court also rejected his claims that he was entitled to sentence credit under MCL 769.11b, or to “specific performance of the trial court’s promise to give him credit for the time he was incarcerated in Ohio before coming to Michigan.” Thus, it affirmed his guilty-plea conviction of armed robbery and his sentence as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 7 to 20 years with 114 days’ credit. He argued that the prosecution violated Article III(a) of the IAD by not bringing him to trial within 180 days. But the 180-day period did not begin when he asserted that it did. Rather, using 1/17/19, the earliest date that his “notice could have been received by the prosecution, the 180 days required by Article III(a) expired on [7/16/19]. Defendant pleaded guilty on [5/23/19]. Therefore, he was ‘brought to trial within the period provided in Article III,’ and he was not entitled to a dismissal of the charge against him.” Further, the fact the prosecution had lodged a detainer against him did “not mean defendant intended to invoke his right to a timely disposition under the IAD. Thus, defendant was required to provide the prosecution with written notice of his place of imprisonment and request for a timely disposition to begin the 180-day clock.” The court also rejected his jail credit arguments. His time in jail from 10/4/18 to 2/13/19 “was not ‘because of being denied or unable to furnish bond for the offense of which he [was] convicted.’” Rather, it was due to his conviction for an unrelated offense in Ohio. He also was not entitled to credit for his time in jail from 4/26/18 to 10/4/18 as he was “incarcerated during that period because of the pending charges on an unrelated Ohio drug offense.” Finally, his specific performance argument failed for three reasons. First, he did not cite any supporting authority. “Second, the trial court’s Cobbs evaluation did not include any reference to jail credit.” Third, plea-withdrawal is the only remedy “for a trial court’s refusal to abide by a Cobbs evaluation . . . .” There was no legal basis for granting him more time served.