People v. Al-Shara, 876 N.W.2d 826

Defendant (Al‑Shara) pleaded nolo contendere in district court to one count of domestic violence under a plea agreement: one year probation (credit for two months already served), no jail.
Defendant signed a written Pre‑Trial Conference Summary that included a signed advice‑of‑rights form waiving trial rights (jury trial, confrontation, right to remain silent, etc.).
At the plea hearing the district court confirmed the plea and asked only whether defendant was giving up the right to a jury/trial and whether anyone forced him; the court did not orally advise or verify on the record defendant’s right to remain silent or right to confront accusers, nor did it reference the signed form on the record.
Defendant moved to withdraw the plea under MCR 6.610(E), arguing the district court failed to advise him of Jaworski rights on the record; the district court denied the motion as a technical defect and relied on the signed form.
The circuit court reversed, holding the omission of two Jaworski rights from the on‑record plea colloquy and the court’s failure to reference the signed form mandated vacatur; the prosecution appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court: because the district court omitted Jaworski rights on the record and failed to verify the written form on the record, the plea must be set aside automatically.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court complied with MCR 6.610(E)(4) in advising rights at plea	Prosecution: substantial compliance — written form + brief oral waiver of jury right suffice; no showing of lack of understanding or prejudice	Al‑Shara: court failed to advise and verify Jaworski rights on the record as required	Held: District court did not substantially comply; omission of two Jaworski rights on the record mandates setting aside plea
Whether a signed written advice‑of‑rights alone (without on‑record colloquy) satisfies rule	Prosecution: written waiver signed by defendant satisfies the rule and substantial compliance	Al‑Shara: written form is insufficient absent on‑record verification that defendant read and understood it	Held: Written form alone is insufficient; MCR 6.610(E)(4) requires some on‑record colloquy or explicit reference to and verification of the written form; omission is not a mere technicality when Jaworski rights are implicated

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (trial judge must ensure waiver of fundamental rights is knowing and voluntary)
People v. Jaworski, 387 Mich. 21 (Mich. 1972) (failure to advise defendant of the three Jaworski rights requires reversal)
Guilty Plea Cases v. Michigan, 395 Mich. 96 (Mich. 1975) (judge must apprise defendant of rights being waived; record must reflect understanding)
People v. Saffold, 465 Mich. 268 (Mich. 2001) (applies substantial‑compliance doctrine; omission of Jaworski right mandates automatic reversal)
People v. Cole, 491 Mich. 325 (Mich. 2012) (plea must be voluntary and understanding; defendant must know rights and direct consequences)
People v. Ward, 459 Mich. 602 (Mich. 1999) (discusses standards for withdrawing plea after sentencing; distinguished here because timely motion invoked MCR 6.610)
People v. Brown, 492 Mich. 684 (Mich. 2012) (standard of review for plea‑withdrawal motions)
People v. Plumaj, 284 Mich. App. 645 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (omission of Jaworski right requires reversal)