Motion to withdraw a plea; Whether the plea was knowing & voluntary; Effect of an affidavit; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to advise defendant of the correct guidelines range; Failure to object to OV scoring; Scoring of OVs 10 & 19; MCL 777.40(1)(b); “Exploit” (MCL 777.40(3)(b)); A “domestic relationship”; MCL 777.49(b); Presumption information in a PSIR is accurate; Right to a speedy trial; People v Williams

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, rejecting his claims that the “plea was not knowing or voluntary and that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the correct” guidelines range. Further, the trial court did not err in scoring 10 points for OV 10 and 15 points for OV 19, and his related ineffective assistance claims also failed. Finally, his “right to a speedy trial was not violated.” He was convicted of assault by strangulation and aggravated assault pursuant to a nolo contendere plea. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 108 to 240 months for the former and 365 days for the latter. The victim was his half-sister. He entered the plea on the second day of his trial. He contended “his plea was not knowing or voluntary because he entered [it] in reliance of the sentencing guidelines that his attorney calculated before trial.” He asserted that “he would not have entered his plea if he knew a higher guidelines range applied to his offenses.” But at no time during his “plea proceedings did the trial court or the parties mention a proposed guidelines range upon which” he could rely. He relied on his affidavit in contending on appeal “that he believed he would be sentenced under a lower guideline range . . . .” However, his affidavit conflicted “with his plea proceeding during which he stated under oath that no one had promised him anything other than what was discussed at the hearing thus far and no one had discussed any sentencing agreement. He also agreed to enter his plea after the trial court informed him that the maximum punishment for his assault-by-strangulation conviction was life imprisonment, and that the maximum punishment for his aggravated-assault conviction was one year in jail. ‘[W]hen a plea is entered in accordance with the applicable court rules, a trial court is barred from considering testimony or affidavits inconsistent with statements made during the plea hearing.’” As a result, his affidavit was “insufficient to establish that his plea was not knowing or voluntary or that he reasonably relied upon his attorney’s representation that he would be sentenced within a specific guideline range.” His speedy-trial claim failed because while prejudice was presumed given that the delay was over 18 months, the other factors were “either neutral or weigh against” finding a violation. Affirmed.