People of Michigan v. Kelly Christopher Warren
333997
Mich. Ct. App.May 17, 2018Background
- Defendant Kelly Warren pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in two separate cases; other charges and a habitual-offender supplementary count were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
- At the plea hearing the court advised Warren each charge carried a five-year maximum, but did not mention the possibility that sentences could be imposed consecutively.
- Warren pleaded guilty and later was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 24 to 60 months, producing a potential 120-month total exposure rather than the 60 months he understood.
- Warren sought to withdraw his plea on the ground the court failed to inform him he was eligible for consecutive sentencing.
- The majority treated consecutive sentencing as a collateral consequence for which no warning was required; Judge Gleicher (dissent) argued consecutive sentencing is a critical sentencing fact that must be disclosed under MCR 6.302(B)(2) and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must advise a defendant before plea that discretionary consecutive sentences may be imposed | The People argued consecutive sentencing is a collateral consequence and no pre-plea advisal is required | Warren argued failure to advise of possible consecutive sentences rendered his plea unknowing because it understated his true maximum exposure | Majority: no advisal required for collateral consequences; Dissent: court must inform defendant of possible consecutive sentencing under MCR 6.302(B)(2) and due process |
| Whether the true maximum sentence includes potential consecutive terms | People: maximum for each charge satisfies rule; aggregate consecutive exposure is collateral | Warren: aggregate consecutive exposure is the true potential maximum and must be disclosed | Majority: treated consecutive as collateral; Dissent: true maximum includes consecutive terms and must be disclosed |
| Whether failure to advise warrants allowing withdrawal of plea | People: no relief where collateral consequence not advised | Warren: plea involuntary because he was uninformed about the actual maximum exposure | Majority denied relief; Dissent would vacate conviction and permit plea withdrawal |
| Proper interpretation of MCR 6.302(B)(2) re: maximum possible sentence disclosure | People: rule satisfied by advising per-count maxima | Warren: rule requires disclosure of aggregate maximum when consecutive sentencing is possible | Dissent: MCR 6.302(B)(2) requires advising defendant of sentencing possibilities that substantially change time to be served |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (establishes that guilty pleas must be voluntary and knowing)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (discusses difficulty distinguishing direct and collateral consequences)
- People v. Cole, 491 Mich. 325 (interprets plea advice requirement; highlights need to inform defendants of consequences that are part of the sentence)
- People v. Brown, 492 Mich. 684 (holds defendants must be notified of enhanced maximum when habitual-offender enhancement applies)
- People v. Fonville, 291 Mich. App. 363 (discussed consecutive-sentencing possibility in dictum)
- People v. Blanton, 317 Mich. App. 107 (addresses plea advisals and discussed consecutive/mandatory sentencing language)
- State v. White, 587 N.W.2d 240 (Iowa) (held possibility of consecutive sentences must be disclosed for plea to be knowing)
- Commonwealth v. Persinger, 532 Pa. 317 (615 A.2d 1305) (held courts must inform defendants that consecutive sentences may be imposed)
- People v. Johnson, 413 Mich. 487 (discussed court-rule procedures for accepting guilty pleas)