in Re Aneesah Jewel Pollard, 333171

Background

Respondent Aneesah Pollard, a juvenile with diagnosed mood/depressive disorders, was charged with two counts of domestic violence after an incident involving family members; a preliminary hearing disclosed prior adjudications and that she had stopped taking prescribed medications.
On April 4, 2016, Pollard pleaded admission to one count in exchange for dismissal of the other; the court advised her of rights and warned that possible dispositions included in-home probation or out-of-home placement if in-home supervision failed.
The court placed Pollard on intensive in-home probation at her grandmother’s house (``regular probation level 1'') after accepting her plea, finding the plea voluntary, understanding, and supported by a factual basis.
Within two weeks, petitioner filed a supplemental violation of probation petition alleging aggressive behavior, self-harm attempts, grabbing a knife during an argument, school suspension, and inability of family to manage her; probation staff testified mental-health services had not yet been established.
On April 19, 2016, the trial court found Pollard violated probation and ordered ‘‘level two’’ out-of-home probation with referral to Wayne County Children & Family Services for placement and care.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Pollard)	Held
Whether Pollard may withdraw her plea because the court failed to advise consequences and lacked factual basis	Court properly informed Pollard of rights and possible dispositions; plea was voluntary and factually supported	Court’s advisement was inadequate (did not precisely state statutory dispositions) and factual basis incomplete	Denied; court complied with MCR 3.941 and established factual basis for domestic violence plea
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating competency	Counsel reasonably relied on Clinic for Child Study evaluation; record shows Pollard understood proceedings	Counsel should have pursued a competency challenge and a Ginther hearing	Denied; no record evidence of incompetence and no apparent error warranting a Ginther hearing
Whether holding a probation-violation hearing two weeks after sentencing was improper	Violation petition authorized hearing upon sworn supplemental petition; timing not restricted by rule	Two weeks insufficient to set up mental-health services; hearing premature	Denied; MCR 3.944 permits hearing on a sworn supplemental petition and court did not abuse discretion
Whether dispositional order (``level two'' out-of-home probation) was unauthorized or inadequately explained	Disposition is authorized under MCL 712A.18(1) and court articulated reasons based on probation testimony	Disposition not authorized by statute and court failed to articulate reasoning	Denied; out-of-home placement is authorized and court articulated its rationale based on record

Key Cases Cited

People v Shaw, 315 Mich. App. 668 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (standards for reviewing plea acceptance)
People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (Mich. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claim is mixed question of fact and law)
People v Douglas, 496 Mich. 557 (Mich. 2014) (prejudice inquiry for ineffective assistance after plea)
People v Matuszak, 263 Mich. App. 42 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (preservation and review when Ginther hearing not requested)
People v Blocker, 393 Mich. 501 (Mich. 1975) (competency must be evidenced to require inquiry)
Indiana v Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (mental illness does not automatically establish incompetence)
People v Brown, 205 Mich. App. 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994) (standard of review for dispositional orders)
In re Ricks, 167 Mich. App. 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988) (review of juvenile dispositional orders)
In re Chapel, 134 Mich. App. 308 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984) (trial court should articulate reasons for disposition)

Affirmed.