People of Michigan v. Virgil Smith, 321 Mich. App. 80

Defendant (a Michigan state senator) pleaded guilty to malicious destruction of property under a plea agreement that required resignation from the Senate and a five-year bar on holding public office; other charges were dismissed and sentence included jail and probation.
At sentencing the trial court sua sponte struck the plea terms requiring resignation and refraining from seeking office as unconstitutional and against public policy (separation of powers and voters' rights), but otherwise accepted the plea.
The prosecutor moved to vacate the plea because defendant did not comply with the struck terms; the trial court denied the motion, reasoning allowing withdrawal would reward unconstitutional prosecutorial bargaining and risk future abuse.
The prosecution appealed both the order voiding those plea terms and the order denying its motion to vacate; the Michigan Court of Appeals (on reconsideration) affirmed the trial court.
The court relied on separation-of-powers principles and persuasive federal and state authority holding that executive-branch plea terms that effectively force removal or bar candidacy unlawfully interfere with legislative functions and the electorate’s choice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether plea terms requiring resignation and a five-year bar on public office violate separation of powers and related constitutional provisions	Terms were voluntary and enforceable as part of a negotiated plea; executive and defendant are entitled to the benefit of their bargain	Terms were unconstitutional because they allowed the executive to effect what only the Legislature may do and infringed voters’ rights	Court struck the resignation and forbearance terms as unconstitutional under state separation-of-powers principles; prosecution cannot condition plea on removing a legislator from office
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the prosecutor’s motion to vacate the plea after those terms were voided	Prosecutor should be allowed to withdraw and renegotiate because the defendant failed to perform and the people deserve the bargain’s benefit	Vacatur would reward unconstitutional bargaining and risk future prosecutorial coercion; enforcing remaining lawful terms serves justice	Court upheld denial of vacatur: removing only the unconstitutional terms and enforcing the rest served administration of justice and discouraged unconstitutional prosecutorial practices

Richmond v. United States, 550 F. Supp. 605 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (district court held plea terms forcing a congressman’s resignation and withdrawal from candidacy unconstitutional as executive interference with legislative branch and voters)
Leopold v. State, 88 A.3d 860 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) (probation condition barring candidacy struck where statutory scheme and separation of powers reserved eligibility/removal matters to political branches)
Kent Cty. Prosecutor v. Kent Cty. Sheriff, 428 Mich. 314 (Mich. 1987) (Separation-of-powers clause does not require airtight boundaries but prohibits one branch exercising whole power of another)
People v. Jackson, 192 Mich.App. 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (plea bargains are analogous to contracts but must comport with interests of justice; courts will not apply ordinary contract rules when they subvert justice)