People v. Brown
492 Mich. 684
| Mich. | 2012Background
- Defendant was not informed of the maximum possible prison sentence with habitual-offender enhancement before pleading guilty.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree home invasion as a second-offense habitual offender in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
- Plea hearing only informed him of the maximum for the underlying offense; enhanced maximum was not conveyed.
- Trial court sentenced defendant to 6 years 3 months to 22 years 6 months and restitution; defendant did not object to the maximum.
- Defendant moved to withdraw plea or be resentenced; the trial court denied, citing Boatman.
- Court holds that MCR 6.302(B)(2) requires notice of enhanced maximum and remands for remedy under MCR 6.310(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCR 6.302(B)(2) require notice of enhanced maximum sentence before plea? | Boatman held no enhancement notice required before plea. | Enhanced maximum must be disclosed prior to plea because it affects the maximum. | Yes; enhanced maximum must be disclosed before plea. |
| What remedy applies when the rule is violated before a guilty plea? | Remand for withdrawal isn’t required; other remedies may apply. | Defendant should be resentenced to unenhanced maximum after plea. | Remand under MCR 6.310(C) with option to stand or withdraw plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Boatman, 273 Mich App 405 (2006) (held Boatman governs relief after plea where 6.302(B)(2) violation occurred; overruled by majority)
- People v Ruffin, 488 Mich 891 (2010) (remand/resentencing/remedy considerations for habitual-offender enhancements)
- People v Lofton, 488 Mich 924 (2010) (remand for withdrawal or resentencing when enhancement not communicated)
- People v Kade, 486 Mich 978 (2010) (discussed tension between 6.302(B)(2) and 769.13(3); precursor to remedy approach)
- People v Jones, 410 Mich 407 (1981) (automatic reversal for failure to inform max/min sentences; later nuanced)
- People v Saffold, 465 Mich 268 (2001) (substantial-compliance doctrine distinction between trial rights and sentencing consequences)
- People v Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96 (1975) (early standard requiring information about plea consequences)
- People v Shekoski, 393 Mich 134 (1974) (strict adherence to guilty plea procedures originally)
- People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993) (direct-consequence analysis informing due process in plea context)