People of Michigan v. Jory Joseph Hannan
329579
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- Defendant pleaded no contest to manufacturing 20–199 marijuana plants and possession with intent to deliver; sentenced to two years’ probation.
- Police found marijuana at his home (54 g) and in a warehouse (24 plants, 12.15 lbs bagged marijuana, 371.5 g in jars).
- Defendant moved to withdraw his plea before sentencing, arguing prior counsel failed to advise him of defenses/immunity under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) — § 8 affirmative defense and § 4 immunity.
- Trial court denied the motion; defendant appealed by leave granted.
- Record showed no registry identification card, amounts/locations exceeding § 4 limits, and no proof of enclosed, locked storage; defendant admitted sole operation of the warehouse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea withdrawal was warranted because counsel did not inform of a § 8 MMMA defense | Plea waived factual-guilt defenses; defendant waived § 8 by no contest plea | Counsel failed to inform defendant of § 8 affirmative defense, making plea involuntary | Waived by plea; § 8 relates to factual guilt and was forfeited by no contest plea; withdrawal not allowed |
| Whether plea waiver exempts a claim that counsel failed to advise of § 4 MMMA immunity | State: § 4 immunity challenges the authority to prosecute and is not waived by plea | Counsel failed to advise defendant of possible § 4 immunity, rendering plea involuntary | § 4 claim not waived, but record did not show defendant met § 4 elements, so immunity did not apply |
| Whether defendant met MMMA § 4 immunity elements | Immunity requires registry card, amounts within limits, locked storage, and medical use | Defendant claimed plants/amounts and third-party ownership justified immunity | No registry card; amounts and plants exceeded limits; storage not proved enclosed/locked; immunity denied |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise re: MMMA defenses/immunity | State: counsel pursued all reasonable avenues; some arguments would be meritless; defendant chose plea to avoid forfeiture | Counsel’s failure to advise about § 4/§ 8 prejudiced decision to plead | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s performance not shown deficient and no reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harris, 224 Mich. App. 130 (1997) (burden to show fair and just reason to withdraw plea before sentencing)
- People v. Brown, 492 Mich. 684 (2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for plea-withdrawal rulings)
- People v. Fonville, 291 Mich. App. 363 (2011) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- People v. Hartwick, 498 Mich. 192 (2015) (interpretation of § 8 and § 4 of the MMMA and elements for § 4 immunity)
- People v. Johnson, 207 Mich. App. 263 (1994) (plea waives defenses related to factual guilt)
- People v. Vonins, 203 Mich. App. 173 (1993) (guilty/nolo pleas waive certain ineffective-assistance claims tied to factual guilt)
- People v. New, 427 Mich. 482 (1986) (distinguishes defenses that challenge authority to prosecute from those addressing factual guilt)
- People v. Danto, 294 Mich. App. 596 (2011) (storage/possession context under MMMA)
- People v. Bylsma, 493 Mich. 17 (2012) (possession by dominion and control for MMMA purposes)
- People v. Rose, 289 Mich. App. 499 (2010) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims when no evidentiary hearing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Pickens, 446 Mich. 298 (1994) (adopts Strickland standard)
- People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (2010) (failure to advance meritless argument is not ineffective assistance)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (prejudice standard for counsel’s erroneous advice about collateral consequences)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (applying Strickland prejudice standard to plea decisions)