People of Michigan v. Anthony Jay Lewandowski
330816
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- In March 2014 defendant Lewandowski was stopped for driving with a suspended license; a pat-down discovered a small quantity of cocaine while he was on parole.
- Defendant pleaded guilty on May 7, 2014; the court complied with MCR 6.302 at that plea. He later moved to withdraw the plea, the court granted withdrawal, and remanded to district court for a preliminary exam.
- After remand and a scheduled suppression/evidentiary hearing, defendant waived the hearing and reinstated his May 7 guilty plea on April 28, 2015; the trial court accepted the reinstated plea but did not again follow MCR 6.302 procedures.
- Defendant raised pre- and post-sentencing motions to withdraw the reinstated plea, alleging procedural error under MCR 6.302, coercion and ineffective assistance of prior counsel, and that the search was illegal.
- The trial court denied the post-sentencing motion; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no reversible error in reinstating the prior valid plea and no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinstating a previously valid guilty plea requires re‑compliance with MCR 6.302 | Court may accept reinstatement without repeating all MCR 6.302 formalities when prior plea was valid | Reinstatement nearly a year later required the trial court to again follow MCR 6.302 to ensure plea was voluntary and knowing | Affirmed: substantial compliance sufficient; prior valid plea need not be fully reprocessed on reinstatement (Plumaj/Kosecki/Wilkens applied) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying defendant’s pre‑sentence motion to withdraw plea | Trial court should deny withdrawal absent showing interests of justice outweigh enforcement | Lewandowski argued coercion and lack of discovery review justified withdrawal | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; defendant offered no evidentiary support for coercion and strategically engaged in proceedings |
| Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to review discovery and coercing plea reinstatement | Prosecutor/ court: record shows discovery provided; no obvious record-based counsel error | Defendant: counsel failed to review discovery and coerced plea, prejudicing him | Affirmed: claim fails on the record; no apparent unreasonable performance or prejudice shown without a Ginther hearing |
| Whether suppression claim (illegal search) warranted plea withdrawal | State: defendant waived evidentiary hearing and therefore cannot rely on suppression claim | Defendant: seizure was illegal and would have vitiated case if litigated | Affirmed: defendant waived the suppression hearing and offered no factual support to show illegality |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Plumaj, 284 Mich. App. 645 (2009) (substantial compliance with MCR 6.302 can validate a plea despite procedural irregularities)
- People v Kosecki, 73 Mich. App. 293 (1977) (withdrawn pleas can be reinstated and prior compliance may suffice)
- People v Wilkens, 139 Mich. App. 778 (1984) (reinstatement of withdrawn pleas is permissible; withdrawn plea not necessarily a nullity)
- People v Saffold, 465 Mich. 268 (2001) (nature of noncompliance determines whether reversal or remand is required)
- People v Lee, 489 Mich. 289 (2011) (de novo review of court rules and statutory interpretation)