People of Michigan v. Kelly Christopher Warren, 333997

Defendant Kelly Warren pleaded guilty to two counts of OWI (third offense) for incidents in 2014 and 2015; remaining charges were dismissed in exchange for the pleas.
At plea the court advised Warren of the maximum sentence for each OWI but did not inform him that sentences could be imposed consecutively.
After sentencing the court imposed two consecutive terms of 24 to 60 months for each conviction.
Warren moved post‑sentence to withdraw his pleas, arguing the pleas were not voluntary because he had not been told consecutive sentences were possible.
The trial court denied withdrawal; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of People v Johnson and People v Blanton.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court must advise a defendant at plea that discretionary consecutive sentencing is possible	The prosecution: no duty beyond the requirements of MCR 6.302; discretionary consequences need not be advised	Warren: plea was defective because court failed to advise that consecutive sentences could be imposed	Court held no duty to advise of discretionary consecutive sentencing; failure to do so is not a defect in plea-taking
Whether failure to advise of discretionary consecutive sentencing violates due process	State: only direct/automatic consequences require court advisement; discretionary consequences are collateral	Warren: not being told of potential consecutive exposure prevented a knowing, voluntary plea	Court held collateral possibility of consecutive sentencing does not require advisement under due process
Whether Blanton requires advisement of consecutive sentences generally	State: Blanton concerns mandatory, not discretionary, consecutive sentencing	Warren: argued Blanton supports requirement to advise about consecutive sentences	Court read Blanton as requiring advisement only where consecutive sentence is mandatory or otherwise a direct consequence
Whether Warren could instead raise ineffective assistance of counsel	State: counsel may have advised defendant but issue not raised	Warren: did not challenge counsel effectiveness in the motion	Court declined to address ineffective assistance because it was not raised

People v Johnson, 413 Mich 487 (trial court not required to advise about consequences not enumerated in plea rule) (discussed)
People v Blanton, 317 Mich App 107 (trial court must advise when plea carries a mandatory consecutive sentence) (explained as limited to mandatory consequences)
People v Cole, 491 Mich 325 (due process may require advising of direct/automatic consequences beyond court rule) (relied on)
People v Fonville, 291 Mich App 363 (possibility of consecutive sentences treated as collateral consequence) (cited)
People v Brown, 492 Mich 684 (standard of review for plea-withdrawal motions) (procedural standard cited)
Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (counsel must advise of certain deportation consequences; ineffective assistance context) (analogous authority on counsel advisement)