People of Michigan v. Arthur Lee Sheard Jr
328514
Mich. Ct. App.Nov 15, 2016Background
- Victim was unloading groceries in a Meijer parking lot, left purse in a shopping cart; defendant drove up, grabbed the purse, accelerated, and dragged the victim into a parked car. Victim suffered a fractured skull, brain bleeding, concussion/traumatic brain injury, and was unconscious in ICU for four days.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to unarmed robbery after negotiating a plea; he later moved to withdraw the plea and challenged sentencing.
- Defendant argued the plea was defective/illusory because armed robbery could not have been charged (no weapon), and contended the court failed to follow MCR 6.302 at the plea hearing.
- He also raised ineffective-assistance claims (counsel permitted the plea despite alleged defects) and multiple sentencing challenges including Lockridge error, sentence reasonableness, and scoring of OV 3.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: plea withdrawal denied, ineffective-assistance claims rejected, and sentencing challenges rejected (including OV 3 scoring and waiver under Cobbs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to withdraw guilty plea | Court complied with plea-taking rules; defendant received benefit of plea | Plea-taking defect under MCR 6.302; plea was not knowing/voluntary | Denied; court complied with MCR 6.302 and no abuse of discretion |
| Whether plea was illusory because armed-robbery charge was legally barred | Prosecution could in good faith charge armed robbery given vehicle used as dangerous weapon | No weapon present; vehicle not a dangerous weapon, so promise to forego armed robbery was illusory | Rejected; vehicle use rendered it a dangerous weapon and plea had genuine benefit |
| Ineffective assistance for permitting plea | Counsel acted competently in securing plea benefit and not pursuing meritless challenges | Counsel deficient for allowing plea when armed-robbery threat was fictitious and plea procedure flawed | Rejected; counsel’s performance not deficient and failure to raise meritless claims not ineffective |
| Sentencing challenges: Lockridge/plain-error, proportionality/reasonableness, OV 3 scoring | Sentencing based on judicial factfinding violated Sixth Amendment; sentence unreasonable; OV 3 improperly scored | Sentence was an upward departure via a Cobbs agreement (waiver of proportionality review); OV3 supported by medical evidence; Lockridge plain-error analysis foreclosed because of upward departure | Rejected: plain-error not shown (upward departure); defendant waived proportionality by Cobbs agreement; OV 3 properly scored for life‑threatening/permanent injury |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 492 Mich. 684 (Michigan 2012) (standard for withdrawal of plea and demonstration of defect in plea-taking process)
- People v. Effinger, 212 Mich. App. 67 (1995) (no absolute right to withdraw plea once accepted)
- People v. Gonzalez, 197 Mich. App. 385 (1992) (illusory plea doctrine and benefit requirement)
- People v. Lange, 251 Mich. App. 247 (2002) (vehicle can be a dangerous weapon when used to inflict injury)
- People v. Mrozek, 147 Mich. App. 304 (1985) (plea bargains provide benefit where prosecution has good-faith basis to charge greater offense)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015) (guidelines advisory after judicial factfinding that increases minimum sentence; plain-error framework)
- People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (1990) (principle of proportionality for sentence reasonableness)
- People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276 (1993) (defendant who agrees to a specific sentence in plea waives appellate proportionality review)
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (2013) (standard for OV scoring: preponderance of evidence for life‑threatening or permanent injury)