Plea withdrawal; Interest of justice; MCR 6.310(B)(1); People v Guyton; Knowing & voluntary no-contest plea; MCR 6.302(A); People v Cole; Ineffective assistance during plea negotiations; People v White

The court held that defendant was entitled to withdraw his no-contest plea because counsel’s objectively unreasonable guidelines misadvice rendered the plea not understanding and voluntary, and it vacated the sentences, reversed the denial of plea withdrawal, and remanded. Defendant pled no contest to two counts of CSC III and, under a Killebrew agreement, was told he would receive the bottom of the guidelines, which the parties estimated as “either 30 months or 45 months,” but the PSIR later showed a 72-to-150-month minimum range and the trial court denied withdrawal and sentenced him at 72 months. On appeal, the court concluded the inducement was not merely an inaccurate prediction but a legal impossibility, stating, “The minimum sentence that induced defendant to plead no contest was factually impossible for him to have received under the guidelines,” and explaining that “the 45-month minimum sentence quoted to defendant was never possible in light of the information about defendant’s criminal history known to the parties at the time of his plea.” The panel rejected counsel’s “juvenile convictions” explanation as not supported by the guidelines and emphasized there “is a meaningful difference between failing to predict what the court might do and failing to correctly apply known facts to the statutory sentencing framework.” Because the misinformation prevented an informed bargain, the court noted that a plea cannot be “understanding or knowingly entered into” when induced by “an inaccurate understanding of the minimum and maximum possible prison sentence,” and held that “defense counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable,” the plea was not “understandingly, knowingly, voluntarily, and accurately made,” and “the interest of justice requires that defendant be permitted to withdraw his plea.”