People v. Blanton
317 Mich. App. 107
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Blanton was charged with multiple felonies (including armed robbery, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and felony-firearm) and initially bound over after a preliminary exam. He negotiated a package plea: plead guilty to three amended counts in exchange for dismissal of other charges and a stipulated guidelines range.
- At the plea hearing, the court advised Blanton of maximum penalties for armed robbery and the assault count, but failed to inform him that felony-firearm carried a mandatory 2‑year term and that it must be served consecutively. Blanton pleaded guilty; the court accepted and later imposed consecutive sentences including the two‑year felony‑firearm term.
- Within six months, Blanton moved to withdraw his plea, arguing the plea was defective because the court failed to advise him of the felony‑firearm penalty and its consecutive nature as required by MCR 6.302(B)(2). The prosecutor conceded the colloquy error as to the felony‑firearm count but argued only that count should be withdrawable.
- The trial court granted Blanton’s motion to withdraw the entire plea package, concluding the negotiated plea was an indivisible “package deal,” and later denied the prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration after advising Blanton on the consequences and confirming his election to withdraw.
- The prosecutor appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether a plea defect as to one count permits withdrawal of the entire multi‑count plea when the parties intended a single package agreement.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Blanton’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defect in the plea colloquy as to one count permits withdrawal of an entire multi‑count plea agreement | The rules refer to the singular “plea” and “plea proceeding,” so a defect should be limited to the particular count affected; only the defective count (felony‑firearm) should be withdrawable | The plea was a negotiated package deal covering multiple counts contemporaneously; a defect in the plea process for one count renders the entire agreement infirm and permits withdrawal of the whole plea | Court affirmed: apply contract‑style analysis; where objective circumstances show a single indivisible package plea, a defect as to one count allows withdrawal of the entire plea package |
| Whether the trial court complied with MCR 6.310(C) when granting withdrawal | The court should have followed MCR 6.310(C)’s procedure (correct the error, advise defendant, then allow election) and at least preserved valid pleas | Blanton argued the plea was defective and the entire plea should be withdrawn; trial court later complied by advising him and obtaining his election before finalizing withdrawal | Court found the defect existed and the trial court did not abuse discretion in treating the plea as indivisible; the court’s later advisement cured procedural concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Brown, 822 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 2012) (defendant must show defect in plea‑taking to withdraw after sentencing)
- People v Cole, 817 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. 2012) (court may not accept plea unless conviction is understanding, voluntary, and accurate)
- People v Clark, 619 N.W.2d 538 (Mich. 2000) (felony‑firearm term is mandatory and consecutive to underlying felony sentence)
- People v Mitchell, 302 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. App. 1981) (trial court must inform defendant that felony‑firearm carries mandatory consecutive two‑year sentence)
- State v Turley, 69 P.3d 338 (Wash. 2003) (where plea negotiations and acceptance show a single package deal, defect as to one count permits withdrawal of entire plea)