Voluntariness of defendant’s plea; Motion to withdraw plea; MCR 6.310(B)

The court held that the circuit court abused its discretion in allowing defendant to withdraw his plea. Thus, it reversed the order of the circuit court and remanded for entry of defendant’s no-contest plea. The prosecution argued “that the circuit court abused its discretion in allowing defendant to withdraw his plea by not properly considering the court rule governing plea withdrawal.” Before the circuit court accepted his “no-contest plea, the prosecutor explained that defendant would be pleading to a reduced charge of assault with intent to commit” CSC II. The circuit court then asked him “if that was his understanding of the plea agreement, and defendant responded affirmatively.” It informed him “that he would be subject to a five-year maximum term of imprisonment at sentencing. Finally, the circuit court explained the rights that defendant would be giving up by pleading no contest, including the right to a jury trial, the right to question witnesses, and the right to automatically appeal.” The record demonstrated his “plea was understanding, voluntary, and accurate.” The court noted that defendant “was made aware of the maximum possible penalty and the other direct consequences of his plea.” He and his counsel confirmed he “was not threatened to plead no contest and was not promised anything outside the plea agreement.” The court noted that defendant “withdrew his no-contest plea after the trial court’s acceptance but before being sentenced.” Thus, MCR 6.310(B) applies. Here, his “reason for withdrawal was that he was under the impression a prison sentence would not be imposed, based on statements he alleges the trial judge made during the chambers meeting. These alleged statements are not reflected in the record, and the trial judge purported to have no memory of any sentencing discussion with defendant before the plea was entered.” It was “unlikely the trial judge made any promises regarding sentencing when the parties agreed on the record that no sentencing agreement was part of the plea (neither defendant nor his counsel objected when the trial judge stated at the time of the plea that there was no sentencing agreement). Even if the trial judge made statements to defendant regarding sentencing, dissatisfaction with the sentence has been found not to constitute a reason in the interest of justice under MCR 6.310(B)(1).” Further, the circuit court’s reasoning for allowing him “to withdraw his plea did not comport with the requirements of MCR 6.310(B)(1).” Also, the circuit court did not address the second prong of MCR 6.310(B)(1).