People of Michigan v. Steven Bradley MacKenzie, 324893

Defendant Steven MacKenzie entered a Killebrew plea (nolo contendere to AWIGBH) agreeing to time served; at sentencing the victim urged the court to reject the plea based on a psychological report.
The prosecutor stated new concerns and agreed to allow withdrawal of the plea; the trial court said it could not, in good conscience, proceed with the agreement but did not state the sentence it intended to impose or explicitly ask MacKenzie whether he wanted to withdraw the plea.
Defense counsel (Crockett) responded in court that if the court did not follow the deal, his client would seek a full trial; Crockett did not interrupt to elicit the defendant’s express decision after the court’s statement.
The plea was withdrawn, the case went to trial, and a jury convicted MacKenzie of attempted murder and aggravated domestic assault; he was sentenced to 11–40 years for attempted murder.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel ruling related to withdrawal of the plea and remanded for a Ginther evidentiary hearing.
After the Ginther hearing the trial court found defense counsel was not ineffective (counsel had discussed options with defendant and believed defendant would not accept any disposition requiring further jail time); the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to ask the defendant, on the record, whether he wished to withdraw his plea after the court said it could not follow the plea agreement	Prosecution: Counsel’s failure was not prejudicial; counsel and defendant knew defendant would reject any plea requiring jail, so outcome unaffected	MacKenzie: Counsel should have elicited an on-the-record decision under MCR 6.310(B)(2); lack of inquiry was deficient and prejudiced him because he might have affirmed the plea if he knew the likely sentence	Court: Even if counsel’s conduct was deficient, no prejudice shown — record showed defendant would have rejected any plea requiring additional jail time, so result would be same
Whether the trial court’s failure to state the intended sentence and offer an opportunity to affirm/withdraw the plea (MCR 6.310(B)(2)) required reversal	Prosecution: Rule violation was not outcome-determinative; defendant effectively waited and invoked error as an ‘appellate parachute’	MacKenzie: Failure to comply with the rule denied a proper plea withdrawal process and prejudiced him	Held: Rule violation occurred but, under Franklin and related precedent, reversal is inappropriate because defendant would have refused any plea involving jail and therefore suffered no prejudice

People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973) (procedure for evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims)
People v Franklin, 491 Mich 916 (2012) (MCR 6.310(B)(2) noncompliance and appellant’s failure to raise error earlier; appellate-parachute considerations)
People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557 (2014) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in plea negotiations)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (applying Strickland to rejected plea offers)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice inquiry in plea-context ineffective-assistance claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v Shaw, 315 Mich App 668 (2016) (standards for review of ineffective-assistance claims)