Motion to withdraw guilty plea; Voluntariness; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Advice on the consequences of defendant’s felony-firearm sentences; People v Corteway; People v Douglas; People v Clark; People v Sawyer; MCL 750.227b(3)

The court held that defendant-Tomes was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance in advising him on the consequences of his felony-firearm sentences rendered it involuntary. He pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver meth. He was initially charged with multiple other crimes, including four counts of felony-firearm. He asserted “that his plea was involuntary because it was based on the inaccurate advice that each of his four felony-firearm charges ‘carries an automatic 2 years in prison consecutive to everything else,’ which would potentially result in ‘a mandatory 8 years’ in addition to sentencing on his other charges.” The court concluded that, given “the clear statutory language and legal precedent establishing that felony-firearm sentences are consecutive only to their underlying offense, trial counsel’s advice fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” In addition, there was a reasonable probability that the plea process outcome would have been different if Tomes had received competent advice. While he ultimately pled guilty, the record showed “he repeatedly expressed a desire to go to trial.” And after the plea was entered, he “pursued avenues to withdraw it.” The court noted that “the prosecution conceded that trial counsel’s advice clearly misunderstood the law[.]” Further, there was no suggestion in the record that trial counsel’s erroneous advice “was corrected before he accepted the plea offer. In light of the conceded legal error and reasonable probability that Tomes would have pursued trial if properly advised, the trial court abused its discretion” in rejecting his ineffective assistance claim. The court vacated the order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remanded.