Guilty plea withdrawal under MCR 6.310(B)(1); Whether the plea withdrawal was within the “interests of justice”; People v Fonville; Whether there was a “fair & just” reason for withdrawing the plea; People v Bailey; Burden of proof for withdrawal of a plea

Holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, the court reversed and remanded, ordering the trial court on remand to reinstate the plea. He was charged with felonious assault, assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer, and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, after refusing to comply with an officer’s orders to exit his vehicle and then driving forward, striking the officer in the leg. The officer, who was responding to a call about drag racing in progress, shot defendant, striking him in the neck and causing serious injuries. Defendant pled guilty to assaulting, resisting, or obstructing, as a second-offense habitual offender, agreeing to a sentence of two years’ probation and other conditions in exchange for dismissal of the other charges. In accepting his plea, he acknowledged “that, by pleading guilty, he would be ‘automatically violating’ the terms of his existing probation.” At sentencing, after expressing concerns about the officer’s actions and the manner in which he handled the situation, the trial judge allowed defendant to withdraw his plea. On appeal, the court agreed with the prosecution that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the plea withdrawal without establishing proper grounds. “[D]efendant willingly admitted he was guilty of the charged crime and did not challenge any of its elements, either at the plea hearing or at sentencing. Indeed, the only thing that appeared to have changed between the plea hearing and sentencing was the trial court’s perspective of the case and the terms of the plea agreement.” The court indicated that it understood “the trial court’s concern for the handling of the situation, which clearly resulted in severe injury to” defendant, and appreciated “that had the trial court reviewed the bodycam of the event prior to taking the plea, it may have suggested a conference with the parties before accepting the plea agreement. Even so, MCR 6.310(B) and relevant caselaw set forth the proper process that the trial court must follow when deciding whether to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea.” The court emphasized “that the defendant bears the burden of showing a fair and just reason to withdraw” a plea. It noted the trial court “relied heavily on its sympathy toward defendant when deciding on the motion for withdrawal, rather than on the legal standard for granting a motion for withdrawal of a plea under MCR 6.310(B). At no point did it require defendant to meet the burden of providing a fair and just reason for withdrawal of his plea under MCR 6.310(B)(1).”