Plea agreements; Specific performance; Santobello v New York; Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27b; People v Watkins; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; People v Ericksen; Evidentiary hearing; People v Ginther

The court held that defendant was not entitled to specific performance of an alleged plea agreement, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other acts evidence under MCL 768.27b, and that defendant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective-assistance or evidentiary-hearing claims. Defendant was convicted of three counts of CSC III involving a 14-year-old victim. The trial court admitted prior-acts testimony from a 2009 case involving an 11-year-old victim. On appeal, the court first held that defendant was not entitled to specific performance because the prosecutor’s email was “indicative of on-going plea negotiations, not an affirmative plea offer that would be subject to immediate acceptance.” Further, defendant rejected plea offers on the record, any off-record agreement would not be enforceable under MCR 2.507(G), and the trial court was correct that there was no showing of detrimental reliance. The court next held that the other acts evidence was properly admitted because, although the 13-year gap and isolated nature of the prior act weighed against admission, both incidents involved sexual conduct against young male victims, defendant was introduced to both victims “as a girlfriend’s ‘uncle[,]’” and the prosecution needed evidence beyond the victim’s testimony. The court further held that counsel was not ineffective because she filed a written objection raising arguments aligned with the Watkins factors, and “‘failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.’” Finally, the court held that defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he failed to show facts requiring further development of the record. Affirmed.