People of Michigan v. Anthony Norman Carta
330693
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- From 2009–2013 Carta ran "Freedom by Faith," a Ponzi-style scheme that defrauded ~100 victims of over $700,000; he was charged in Oakland Circuit Court with seven counts (conducting a criminal enterprise; one high-value false pretense; five lower-value false pretenses).
- Carta negotiated a plea: plead guilty to the seven counts, pay $400,000 restitution by sentencing, prosecution would not bring additional charges, and the court would sentence in the bottom third of the guidelines if restitution was paid.
- Carta appeared at the plea hearing without retained counsel after prior counsel withdrew; the court found Carta had forfeited his right to counsel and accepted his guilty pleas to all counts in a single proceeding.
- At the plea colloquy the court incorrectly advised that the enhanced maximum sentences for Counts 3–7 (given Carta’s fourth-habitual-offender status) were 15 years, when in fact those counts could be enhanced to life.
- After Carta failed to make restitution, the court sentenced him above the bottom third and imposed 30–99 years on each count; Carta then moved to withdraw his plea based on flawed sentencing advice and denial of counsel.
- The trial court allowed withdrawal only as to Counts 3–7; the Court of Appeals held the plea was an indivisible package and reversal/remand was required to allow Carta to elect to withdraw the entire plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defective advice on maximum sentence for some counts requires withdrawal of only those pleas or the entire plea agreement | Only the portions affected by faulty advice should be vacated; remaining plea parts may stand | The plea was an indivisible "package deal" negotiated and accepted as a whole, so the entire plea is defective | The plea was indivisible; defendant entitled to withdraw the entire plea (remand for election under MCR 6.310(C)) |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to correctly advise about enhanced maximum sentences (habitual-offender) rendered the plea defective | Court’s misstatement is harmless to parts of the plea | Misadvice about maximum punishment contaminated the plea’s voluntariness and understanding | Misadvice rendered the plea defective; remedy is to give correct advice and allow election to withdraw or affirm |
| Whether plea bargains may be analyzed under contract principles to determine separability | The prosecution: treat discrete parts as severable | Defendant: apply contractual approach to show objective indicia that parties treated the deal as a single transaction | Contractual/"Turley" approach applies; objective indicia showed parties treated plea as a single package |
| Whether defendant should receive or be allowed appointed counsel on remand | State: appointment not required if defendant can afford counsel | Carta: must have counsel or reasonable opportunity to retain counsel before repleading/trial | Court directs appointment or reasonable opportunity to retain counsel on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Brown, 492 Mich. 684 (2012) (plea must be understanding, voluntary, accurate; court must advise maximum possible sentence)
- State v Turley, 149 Wash. 2d 395 (2003) (treat plea agreements as contracts; use objective indicia to decide if multi-count plea is indivisible)
- People v Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276 (1993) (procedure for plea agreements and court’s COBBS advisals on sentencing agreement limits)
- People v Martinez, 307 Mich. App. 641 (2014) (appellate review standards; contractual analogies to plea agreements)
- People v Swirles (After Remand), 218 Mich. App. 133 (1996) (contractual analogies may be applied to plea agreements without subverting justice)