People v. Fonville
291 Mich. App. 363
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Fonville pled guilty to one count of child enticement under a Cobbs plea agreement; other enticement count dropped.
- Plea transcript showed Fonville admitted he fraudulently detained two minors while he and a friend used crack cocaine and drove around to obtain drugs.
- Trial court accepted the plea, rejected withdrawal, and sentenced Fonville to 51 months to 20 years; later proceedings raised concerns about innocence, coercion, and ineffective assistance.
- Fonville later sought to withdraw the plea, arguing lack of innocent intent, insufficient factual basis, and misadvice by counsel regarding consequences.
- The trial court denied relief; the Michigan Court of Appeals eventually granted relief, reversing and remanding for further proceedings on ineffective assistance related to sex-offender registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea withdrawal was properly denied given a sufficient factual basis | Fonville argued the facts did not support child enticement and he lacked intent to detain or conceal. | The prosecution contended the factual basis existed and plea withdrawal was not in the interest of justice. | No abuse; factual basis supported plea and withdrawal denied. |
| Whether sex-offender registration is a collateral or direct consequence of the plea | Fonville should be informed because registration is a direct, not collateral, consequence. | Registration is a collateral consequence, not affecting the validity of the plea. | Registration is a direct consequence under Padilla-like reasoning; defense counsel must inform; impact on knowingness of plea. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about sex-offender registration | Counsel’s failure prejudiced Fonville and render the plea not knowing. | No ineffective assistance for failure to quash information or general consequences; Padilla applies to registration. | Counsel failed to inform about registration; ineffective assistance established; remand for relief from judgment. |
| Whether the plea had a sufficient factual basis under MCR 6.302(D)(1) | The offense required specific intent to detain or conceal; evidence did not show this. | The admitted conduct and elements supported enticement. | Majority found sufficient factual basis; concurrence disputed this under specific-intent analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993) (Cobbs agreement defines plea-within-guideline framework and withdrawal rights)
- People v Boatman, 273 Mich App 405 (2006) (informing of direct consequences; habitual-offender sentencing context)
- People v Davidovich, 238 Mich App 422 (1999) (plea withdrawal and collateral consequences considerations)
- People v Dipiazza, 286 Mich App 137 (2009) (distinguishes punishment vs. registration consequences under certain facts)
- Padilla v Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform about deportation risk; used to analogize sex-offender registration as direct consequence)
- Golba v. People, 273 Mich App 603 (2007) (statutory registration discussions in Michigan appellate context)