Whether respondent-juvenile’s plea was understandingly made; People v Brinkey; Failure to advise respondent of the potential disposition of placement in a residential facility in accordance with MCR 3.941(C)(1)(b); Plain error

The court held that the trial court plainly erred in failing to comply with MCR 3.941(C)(1)(b) and this plain error affected respondent-juvenile’s “substantial rights and the integrity and fairness of the proceedings.” She appealed the trial court’s order adopting Juvenile Probation’s disposition recommendation and ordering Probation to seek a residential facility placement for her after she entered a plea of admission to third-degree retail fraud. When the trial “court accepted respondent’s plea, it did not list residential placement as a possible disposition of the plea. Rather, [it] advised respondent that placement in a facility could be a consequence of failing to abide by probation requirements.” The court concluded her “plea was not understandingly made because the trial court failed to fully inform her of the direct consequences of her plea, namely the possible dispositions, including placement in a residential facility which [it] ultimately imposed, in violation of her due process rights.” The court noted that had she “known of that possible disposition, she may not have pleaded to third-degree retail fraud.” It vacated the adjudication and disposition orders, and remanded.