People of Michigan v. James William Freese II, 329673

Background

Defendant James William Freese II faced multiple sexual‑assault charges (1991–2012) and initially proceeded to jury trial; midtrial he pled no contest to 11 counts of criminal sexual conduct (various degrees) in exchange for dismissal of one charge carrying a 25‑year mandatory minimum.
After plea, the court accepted factual bases and imposed concurrent prison terms (15–40 years for CSC‑I counts; 3–15 for CSC‑II; 4–15 for CSC‑III; 13 months–2 years for CSC‑IV) and lifetime electronic monitoring.
Defendant moved to withdraw his no‑contest pleas, alleging coercion by trial counsel and inadequate advice about mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring; he also alleged ineffective assistance of trial and successor counsel and judicial bias, and challenged sentencing departures.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found the pleas voluntary (no coercion) and that the plea colloquy substantially complied with rule requirements regarding sentencing consequences.
The Court of Appeals reviewed plea withdrawal (abuse of discretion), ineffective‑assistance claims (record‑based review for unpreserved claims), and sentencing departures (reasonableness after Lockridge), and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to withdraw plea	Freese’s pleas were voluntary; trial court properly found no coercion	Pleas were involuntary — counsel coerced him into pleading midtrial after alibi was undermined	Denied — trial court’s finding that pleas were not coerced was not clearly erroneous; plea colloquy supported voluntariness
Trial court bias	Court acted as neutral magistrate and properly evaluated testimony	Court expressed disbelief of alibi and was biased against Freese	Rejected — judge’s disbelief of alibi did not constitute disqualifying bias
Failure to advise re: lifetime electronic monitoring	Court substantially complied by advising of lifetime monitoring on other counts; omission as to CSC‑II was harmless	Plea was defective because court failed to advise that CSC‑II carries mandatory lifetime monitoring (Cole)	Rejected — substantial compliance with MCR 6.302(B)(2); Cole distinguishable because there the court completely failed to advise
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s conduct (coercing plea; failing to preserve monitoring claim) was constitutionally deficient and prejudicial	Counsel’s advice was reasonable under circumstances; objections would have been futile; no prejudice shown	Rejected — coercion claim fails on the merits; failure to raise monitoring issue not prejudicial given substantial compliance; unpreserved claims fail on record review
Sentencing (departure/minimums)	Sentences justified by gravity, victim impact, relationship to victims, and lengthy pattern of abuse	Minimums exceed guidelines and are disproportionate	Affirmed — trial court reasonably and adequately articulated objective reasons (seriousness, parental/guardian role, multiple victims, long duration) supporting upward departures

Key Cases Cited

People v. Wilhite, 240 Mich. App. 587 (review standard for withdrawal of plea) (discussing abuse of discretion standard for plea‑withdrawal motions)
People v. Babcock, 469 Mich. 247 (principled range of outcomes standard for abuse of discretion)
In re Dearmon, 303 Mich. App. 684 (deference to trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses; clear‑error standard)
People v. Cole, 491 Mich. 325 (2012) (complete failure to advise of lifetime electronic monitoring warrants plea withdrawal)
People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (sentencing review: reasonableness after advisory guidelines)
People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (factors relevant to sentencing proportionality)
People v. Sabin, 242 Mich. App. 656 (egregiousness of sexual abuse by parental/guardian figure supports harsher sentence)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal/plea matters)