Waiver of the right to counsel; People v Belanger; Probation revocation hearing procedures; MCR 6.445; Determining whether defendant was able to pay his restitution; MCL 769.1a(14); MCR 6.425(D)(3)

Holding that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, the court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his probation violation plea. But its failure to analyze on the record relevant factors as to his ability to comply with the restitution order required the court to vacate that order and remand for specific findings under MCR 6.425(D)(3). He appealed the order revoking his probation based on his failure to pay restitution following his plea-based convictions of Medicaid fraud, healthcare fraud, and unauthorized practice of medicine. As to his waiver of counsel claim, the court found that the trial court complied with MCR 6.445’s requirements at the probation revocation plea and sentencing proceedings. Further, the factors cited in Belanger showed “that defendant’s waiver was knowingly and intelligently made.” At the time of the sentencing hearing, he was in his 60s; “he was highly educated and had a doctoral degree in medicine; and he had a criminal history involving” a felony mail fraud from 2003 and multiple “counts of medical fraud from 2015. These factors indicate that defendant had a high degree of familiarity with the criminal justice system.” In addition, nothing in the record indicated he “was pressured or induced to admit to these charges without the assistance of counsel, and the trial court even double-checked to ensure defendant wanted to proceed with his plea without the assistance of counsel.” As to the decision to sentence him to prison for failing to pay restitution, MCR 6.425(D)(3) required the trial court to “consider at least six factors in determining whether defendant could comply with the restitution order absent manifest hardship.” While the trial court did consider the willfulness of his “failure to pay, and employment history (at least generally), it did not discuss or address defendant’s earning ability, financial resources, basic living expenses or other relevant factors, despite there being some evidence relative to those factors in the record. It could well be that the court did consider this evidence and these factors, but it did not do so on the record, and thus failed to comply with the court rule, which also” hampered the court’s review.