Motion for relief from judgment; Right to self-representation; People v Dunigan; Acceptance of a plea; MCR 6.302(B); People v Jaworski; People v Al-Shara; Sufficient factual basis; MCR 6.302(D); Whether “without justification or excuse” is an element of second-degree murder; Whether coercion was applied in taking the plea; People v Killebrew

Holding that “without justification or excuse” is not an element of second-degree murder, the court concluded “the trial court did not violate MCR 6.302(B) or Jaworski when accepting defendant’s guilty plea, and that the plea did not lack a sufficient factual basis under MCR 6.302(D).” It further found that he was not denied his right to self-representation, and that there was no Killebrew violation. Thus, it affirmed the denial of his motion for relief from judgment. He sought to withdraw his guilty plea to second-degree murder and felony-firearm. The court first found that he “never unequivocally requested to represent himself, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ‘failing’ to address this request or by otherwise ‘denying’ self-representation.” As to his claim the trial court did not comply with MCR 6.302(B) and Jaworski in taking his plea, the court concluded “the trial court substantially complied with MCR 6.302(B), including conducting the necessary inquiry regarding Jaworski rights. While [it] only explicitly questioned defendant on the record regarding one Jaworski right in confirming that [he] understood that he would forego his right to a jury trial by pleading guilty, explicit questioning on each Jaworski right is not always necessary.” The trial court discussed his “written acknowledgment of rights on the record when confirming not only that [he] signed the plea acceptance form that referenced all of the rights allegedly omitted by the trial court, but also discussed its contents with his attorney[.]” The court determined that following “Al-Shara, this colloquy is a proper method for accepting defendant’s guilty plea in substantial compliance with MCR 6.302 and Jaworski.” As to his claim his plea did not have a sufficient factual basis under MCR 6.302(D), he was correct that he “was never asked whether the shooting was unjustified or unexcused.” Thus, the question was “whether the failure to affirmatively establish that the shooting was not justified or excused, at least with respect to self-defense, constitutes a failure to establish an element of second-degree murder.” Reviewing the historical development of the crime, the court concluded “that ‘without justification or excuse’ is not a true element of second-degree murder. Instead, it is part of the ‘cluster of ideas’ about the act of murder that our Legislature adopted in 1846 by enacting the homicide statutes.” Finally, it found that “the trial court did not create impermissible coercion as contemplated by Killebrew."