e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 75192
Opinion Date : 04/01/2021
e-Journal Date : 04/19/2021
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Stokes
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Murray, Jansen, and Stephens
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Motion to withdraw a plea; Compliance with MCR 6.302(B)(2) & (C); People v Jackson; Whether the plea agreement was illusory; Sentencing; Waiver; MCR 6.425(E)(1)(c); Denying defense counsel the opportunity to allocute on defendant’s behalf; Whether the SORA reporting & compliance requirements in the sentence were ambiguous; People v Betts; People v Snyder; Judgment of sentence (JOS)

Summary

Finding that the trial court complied with MCR 6.302 and that the plea agreement was not illusory, the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. But because the trial court denied defense counsel the opportunity to allocate on defendant’s behalf, he was entitled to resentencing. The court declined to determine which version of the SORA he must comply with, noting that the trial court on remand will have the “opportunity to either clarify the ambiguity at play in this case and amend the [JOS] to reflect which version of the Act dictates defendant’s reporting and compliance requirements, or hold this matter in abeyance pending our Supreme Court’s decision in Betts and Snyder.” Defendant pled guilty to CSC III and was sentenced to 7 to 15 years. As to his motion to withdraw his plea, the court noted that the Supreme Court limited application of MCR 6.302(B)(2) in Jackson, holding that “automatic reversal is not required for a failure to give advice concerning the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences if the defendant is sentenced pursuant to a sentencing agreement.” The trial court here sentenced defendant “pursuant to the written plea agreement.” In addition, where “a written plea agreement exists, the trial court need not orally place each condition of that plea agreement on the record if the written agreement is incorporated into the record and all other requirements of MCR 6.302(C) are satisfied.” The court determined “that defendant was made aware of the terms of the plea agreement, that the trial court complied with the requirements of MCR 6.302(B) and (C), and that defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a no contest plea to” CSC III. It also found no merit in his claim that the plea agreement was illusory. He clearly received the benefit of his bargain when the prosecution dismissed CSC I and II charges and he was sentenced in accordance with the agreement. But he was entitled to resentencing. The court noted that “MCR 6.425(E)(1)(c) does not require the defendant, his attorney, the prosecution, or the victim request the ability to allocute; the burden is placed on the trial court to provide the opportunity.” On remand for resentencing, the trial court will also need to correct his JOS as to which version of the SORA “governs defendant’s reporting and compliance requirements.”

Full PDF Opinion