People of Michigan v. Paul Edward White
352999
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 17, 2021Background
- Defendant Paul White pleaded guilty in 2014 to two counts of armed robbery and one count of witness tampering while on parole for a 1997 second-degree murder conviction.
- He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent 30–90 year terms for the robberies, made statutorily consecutive to the remaining murder sentence; the tampering sentence was ordered consecutive to the robbery sentences.
- At the plea colloquy the trial court did not advise White that, because he committed the robberies while on parole, the robbery sentences would not begin until he completed the remaining murder sentence (MCL 768.7a(2)).
- White later filed a postappeal MCR 6.500 motion arguing the trial court and trial counsel failed to advise him of the mandatory consecutive effect; the trial court denied relief and did not rule on the ineffective-assistance claims for counsel or appellate counsel.
- The Court of Appeals held the mandatory consecutive sentencing tied to a parole violation is a direct consequence of a guilty plea and that the trial court was required (under MCR 6.302(A)/due process principles) to advise the defendant; it reversed and remanded for the trial court to decide good-cause and actual-prejudice under MCR 6.508 and to address trial- and appellate-counsel ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required at the plea to advise that parole status would make new sentences run consecutively to the prior sentence | No; court had no obligation to advise and silence is not error | Yes; failure to advise of mandatory consecutive sentencing rendered pleas defective | Court: Mandatory consecutive sentencing tied to parole is a direct consequence; court was required to advise under MCR 6.302(A)/due process |
| Whether White showed "good cause" and "actual prejudice" under MCR 6.508 for raising the claim postappeal | No; White failed to demonstrate good cause or prejudice | Appellate- and trial-counsel failures can establish good cause; plea involuntary because defendant would not have pled if informed | Remanded: trial court must decide good cause and actual prejudice in the first instance (may consider ineffective-appellate-counsel exception and possibility-of-innocence) |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not advising of the mandatory consecutive effect | (Trial court did not address) Prosecution effectively contended there was no duty to advise | Counsel failed to inform White about the parole-consequence; counsel’s omission rendered plea uninformed | Remanded: trial court must decide the ineffective-assistance claim under MCR 6.508 standards (good cause/actual prejudice) |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the advising issue on direct appeal | Appellate counsel’s omission did not justify relief because White did not raise the issue | Failure of appellate counsel to raise a meritorious issue establishes good cause for collateral review | Court noted Reed: ineffective appellate counsel can satisfy good-cause and directed trial court to consider this on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Warren, 505 Mich. 196 (Supreme Court requires advising defendants of discretionary consecutive-sentencing authority under MCR 6.302(B)(2))
- People v Brown, 492 Mich. 684 (Supreme Court: enhanced/habitual sentences are part of the maximum a defendant must be told before pleading)
- People v Cole, 491 Mich. 325 (explains due-process requirement that pleas be knowing, voluntary, and the direct/collateral consequence distinction)
- People v Blanton, 317 Mich. App. 107 (mandatory consecutive felony-firearm term is a direct consequence; plea colloquy must disclose it)
- In re Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich. 96 (historic rule on advising parole/probation status; distinguished here)
- People v Reed, 449 Mich. 375 (ineffective appellate counsel can establish good cause for collateral review)
- Brady v United States, 397 U.S. 742 (pleas must be knowing and voluntary to satisfy due process)
- People v Fonville, 291 Mich. App. 363 (examples of collateral consequences; distinguishes direct consequences)