Motion for plea withdrawal; Whether the plea was understanding, voluntary, & accurate; Whether the correct legal standard was applied; People v Wilhite; MCR 6.310(B); Whether there was a fair & just reason to withdraw the plea

Concluding that the trial court’s rulings on defendant-Phillips’s motions to withdraw his plea were not “outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes, or based on an error of law[,]” the court affirmed. He was convicted of meth possession, meth delivery/manufacture, and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended or revoked license. He unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his plea before and after sentencing. He argued on appeal that “his plea was not understanding, voluntary, and accurate” because he was unaware of the guidelines range for the delivery/manufacture offense, “there were factual issues underlying the convictions he desired to address, and” he did not have adequate “time and resources to address his cases with counsel.” The court disagreed. The trial “court properly delineated the potential sentences accompanying the offenses, and it consistently inquired whether Phillips understood the penalties accompanying the guilty plea. [It] further detailed the benefits of entering the guilty plea[.]” The court noted that at no point “did Phillips indicate that he did not desire to proceed with the plea, or that he was otherwise conflicted regarding its terms. Further, considering [his] extensive legal history, it was less likely that he unaware of the potential implications of pleading guilty.” In addition, the trial court detailed the factual basis and elements of each offense during the plea hearing, and Phillips affirmed them. It also adjourned the hearing to allow him “and his attorney to discuss the plea agreement” and he responded positively when it asked if he had “sufficient time to discuss” the matter with counsel. As to his claim the incorrect legal standard was applied, the court found that “because the trial court reconsidered Phillips’s motion under the appropriate legal standard, . . . its ultimate ruling was not based on an error of law. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Phillips neglected to establish a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea.”