Motion to withdraw a plea; Requirement that a nolo contendere plea be voluntary & knowing; People v. Cole; MCR 6.302(A); Requirement that a defendant seeking to withdraw a plea after sentencing must show a defect in the plea-taking process; People v. Brown; Whether the plea bargain was illusory; People v. Williams; Whether it was tainted because defendant was led to believe a recording would be admitted at trial when the conversation was protected by attorney-client privilege; Necessity of an “element of confidentiality”; People v. Compeau; Waiver where defendant spoke to his attorney over a jail phone line he knew was monitored & recorded; Bassett v. State (IN); McWatters v. State (FL); United States v. Friedman (2d Cir.); Claim that the plea was based on an incorrectly calculated minimum guidelines range; People v. Smith; Effect of understandingly & voluntarily entering into a plea agreement to accept that specific sentence; People v. Wiley; Ineffective assistance of counsel; In re Oakland Cnty. Prosecutor; People v. Douglas; Factual predicate; People v. Putman; Claim that defendant was entitled to resentencing; People v. Billings

The court held that the plea agreement was not illusory and that defendant did not identify any defect in the plea-taking process entitling him to withdraw his plea. Further, he waived appellate review of his sentence, despite any errors in calculating the guidelines, because he agreed to the sentence imposed as part of the plea deal. He also failed to show that his attorney was ineffective, and the court rejected his claim that he was entitled to resentencing because his sentence was not proportionate. He pled nolo contendere to armed robbery and felony-firearm. He was sentenced to 6 to 20 years for the armed robbery and a consecutive 2-year term for the felony-firearm. He argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. As to his claim that his plea bargain was illusory, the court noted that in exchange for his plea, “the prosecution dismissed two of the charges against him, dismissed the habitual offender sentencing enhancement, and agreed that [he] would be sentenced to 6 to 20 years for the armed robbery conviction.” There also was no defect in the plea-taking process. “He testified that, before he signed the settlement offer, he discussed the terms of the agreement with his lawyer, that he understood the terms of the agreement, he was satisfied with his lawyer’s representation, and he understood the rights he was giving up by pleading.” In addition, he stated that he understood that he would serve 2 years for felony-firearm and 6 to 20 years for armed robbery. Thus, it was clear that his plea was knowing and voluntary. He claimed that “his plea bargain was tainted because he was led to believe that the recording of the phone call between him and his lawyer would be admitted at trial when” their conversations were protected by attorney-client privilege. The court held that he waived any claim of confidentiality where he “spoke to his lawyer over a jail phone line that he knew was monitored and recorded . . . .” Also, his attorney was not deficient for failing to discover the alleged illusory nature of the plea bargain where it was not illusory, or for failing to advise him that the recordings were inadmissible where “the conversations were not privileged.” Affirmed.