e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 79532
Opinion Date : 05/18/2023
e-Journal Date : 06/05/2023
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Roll
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Patel, Cavanagh, and Redford
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Motion to withdraw guilty plea; Voluntariness of plea; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Ginther

Summary

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that he was not denied the ineffective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed. The court found “that the trial court complied with the requirements of MCR 6.302. Based on defendant’s testimony at the plea hearing, it is clear that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly. He was ‘informed of the consequences of his . . . plea and, necessarily, the resultant sentence.’” The court acknowledged that he “stated in a post-sentencing affidavit that he believed limiting the OV ‘at 34 months’ meant that he would serve no more than 34 months in prison.” The prosecution had agreed to a cumulative OV total of no more than 34 points. Defendant contended “that the trial court stated, ‘there is a sentencing agreement that the offense variables is no greater than 34 months.’” This was an inaccurate recitation of the record. The court concluded the trial court clearly did not use the word “months.” Defendant’s affidavit was “not supported by the record, directly contradicts his sworn testimony during the plea hearing, and is insufficient to overcome his statements under oath at the plea proceeding.” The court held that because “there were no errors at the plea hearing, defendant was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to MCR 6.310(C).” Also, there was “no evidence to rebut the strong presumption that defense counsel’s performance was adequate and competent throughout the plea and sentencing process.” And defendant had “not offered any evidence to demonstrate that, ‘but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’” Finally, because there was “no factual record that requires development in order to consider whether defense counsel was ineffective, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s request for a Ginther hearing.”

Full PDF Opinion