People v. Cole
491 Mich. 325
| Mich. | 2012Background
- Michigan Supreme Court case questioning whether mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring is a direct consequence of CSC-I/II pleas.
- Cole pleaded guilty/no contest to CSC-II counts involving a victim under 13; Cobbs evaluation capped minimums, sentences run concurrently.
- Trial court imposed 5–15 year sentences with lifetime electronic monitoring mandated under CSC-II(2)(b) and CSC-I(2)(d).
- Plea hearing did not inform defendant about lifetime electronic monitoring as a consequence of the plea.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding monitoring was a sentence consequence not collateral; this Court granted leave to decide.
- Court concludes lifetime electronic monitoring is part of the sentence and must be disclosed at plea to satisfy due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring is a direct consequence of the plea. | Cole argues monitoring is collateral, not part of sentence. | State contends monitoring is a sentence consequence via statutes. | Yes; monitoring is a direct consequence and must be disclosed. |
| Whether MCR 6.302 requires informing about such monitoring. | Rule B-D may not fully capture due process. | Rule suffices if it covers maximum and minimum terms. | Due process requires informing about lifetime monitoring at plea. |
| Whether due process requires disclosure despite subrules. | Understanding/voluntary plea demands knowledge of direct consequences. | Rule-based compliance ensures voluntariness. | Due process governs beyond subrules to include direct consequence of monitoring. |
| Whether the plain text of statutes indicates monitoring is punishment. | Statutes mandate lifelong monitoring as punishment. | Statutory text shows monitoring as part of the sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 238 (US 1969) (requirement of knowing, voluntary plea under due process)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 US 459 (US 1969) (voluntary and knowing plea)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 US 25 (US 1970) (plea choosing among alternatives must be knowing)
- Brady v United States, 397 US 742 (US 1970) (waivers must be voluntary and knowing with awareness of consequences)
- Lott v. United States, 367 US 421 (US 1961) (guilty plea treated as admission of elements; no-contest similar for purposes)
- People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993) (plea evaluations and minimum sentence considerations)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 US 84 (US 2003) (legislative intent governs whether conduct is punishment or civil)
- Cuthrell v. Patuxent Institution Director, 475 F.2d 1364 (4th Cir. 1973) (direct versus collateral consequences framework)
- Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993) (direct consequence of sentence)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. _ (US 2010) ((discussed regarding direct vs collateral))