People of Michigan v. Virgil Smith, 332288

Defendant Virgil Smith was charged with domestic violence, malicious destruction of property, felonious assault, and felony firearm after a 2015 altercation with his ex-wife.
On Feb 11, 2016, Smith pled guilty to malicious destruction of property under a plea agreement: dismissal of remaining charges, 10 months jail (within a five-year probation), resignation from his Michigan Senate seat, and agreement not to hold public office during probation.
At sentencing the trial court sua sponte held the resignation/public-office provisions violated separation of powers and the people’s right to choose representatives and declared those portions void; it otherwise imposed the agreed sentence.
The prosecutor moved to vacate the plea, arguing Smith breached the agreement and the prosecution should be allowed to renegotiate; the trial court denied the motion, finding vacatur would subvert the interests of justice because most terms had been or would be fulfilled.
Smith subsequently voluntarily resigned his Senate seat and indicated he would not run during probation, rendering the constitutional challenge and enforcement dispute largely moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea terms requiring resignation and refraining from office are enforceable	Prosecutor: court may enforce plea terms; voiding them improperly alters the bargain	Smith: provisions violate separation of powers and voters’ right to choose; unconstitutional and void	Moot — court declined to decide constitutionality because Smith resigned voluntarily; the challenge was not addressed on merits
Whether court should vacate the plea after it declared portion void	Prosecutor: trial court should vacate plea so prosecution can renegotiate given unenforceable term and alleged noncompliance	Smith: vacatur would be unjust; defendant already suffered substantial punishment and fulfilled key terms; prosecutorial withdrawal now would subvert justice	Denial of vacatur was affirmed as not an abuse of discretion under the circumstances (vacatur would subvert ends of justice), though court noted immediate denial at the time the court first rejected the term was an abuse of discretion if sought then

BP 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356 (mootness doctrine; court will not decide issues that cannot afford relief)
Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98 (courts generally avoid moot questions absent recurring public significance)
In re Midland Pub Co, Inc, 420 Mich 148 (constitutional questions may be decided despite mootness when likely to recur)
People v Swirles (After Remand), 218 Mich App 133 (vacatur of plea that would subvert justice is disfavored)
People v Siebert, 201 Mich App 402 (prosecutor has equal right to withdraw from plea bargain)
People v Martinez, 307 Mich App 641 (plea bargains serve administration of justice and are not ordinary commercial contracts)
People v Jackson, 192 Mich App 10 (recognizing prosecutorial bargaining authority)
People v Strong, 213 Mich App 107 (standard of review for trial court’s decision to set aside a guilty plea)
People v Lee, 314 Mich App 266 (abuse of discretion definition)