People v. Martinez, 307 Mich. App. 641

Background

In 2001 Martinez pleaded guilty to child sexually abusive activity and was sentenced to 4–20 years; he was paroled in 2007 and later arrested after new allegations by the same complainant prompted charging for first‑degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I).
On September 14, 2009 Martinez entered a plea to second‑degree CSC (CSC II) pursuant to a plea agreement in which the prosecutor agreed to dismiss CSC I and "not bring any other charges regarding sexual contact or penetration with [the complainant] that grows out of this same investigation that occurred during the period of 1996 through 2000," and the court gave a Cobbs assessment that the minimum sentence would not exceed four years. The court accepted the plea.
After the plea was accepted, the complainant reported additional allegations (fellatio) unknown to the prosecutor; the prosecutor filed new CSC I charges based on those allegations.
Martinez moved to quash the new charges as barred by the plea agreement. The circuit court reviewed police reports available at plea time, concluded a mutual mistake existed because the reports did not include the new allegations, and vacated Martinez’s accepted plea to CSC II. The new CSC I charges were reinstated and tried; Martinez was convicted of CSC I and sentenced to 15–25 years.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion in vacating the accepted plea because MCR 6.310 did not authorize the court to rescind an accepted plea except in limited circumstances (defendant motion, defendant consent, or prosecutor motion for defendant noncompliance), and contractual/contract‑interpretation or Cobbs rationales did not justify rescission here. The Court vacated the CSC I conviction and remanded for sentencing on CSC II per the original plea agreement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could vacate an accepted plea on its own after acceptance but before sentencing	Prosecutor argued new, previously unknown allegations were not within the scope of the agreed "investigation," and court could vacate because of mutual mistake or prosecutor’s right to withdraw	Martinez argued the plea was accepted on the record and could only be vacated under MCR 6.310 by the defendant’s motion/consent or by prosecutor motion for defendant noncompliance	The court held MCR 6.310 did not permit the trial court to vacate the accepted plea on its own; vacatur was an abuse of discretion and the plea remained binding
Whether contract principles or Cobbs participation justified vacating the plea because of newly disclosed allegations	Prosecutor and trial court treated the absence of the new allegations from police reports as a mutual mistake, and court’s Cobbs involvement justified reassessment	Martinez argued the plea’s plain terms controlled, "investigation" was not limited to existing police reports, and a mutual mistake did not exist because defendant need not disclose other offenses	The court held contract principles did not support vacatur; the trial court improperly rewrote the plea, and Cobbs sentencing discretion does not permit nullifying the prosecutor’s charging concessions

Key Cases Cited

People v. Cole, 491 Mich 325 (standard of review for plea withdrawal) (addresses abuse of discretion and review standards)
People v. Brown, 492 Mich 684 (court‑rule interpretation authority) (addresses MCR 6.310 interpretation)
People v. Strong, 213 Mich App 107 (trial court limitations on vacating accepted pleas) (held court abused discretion vacating plea when defendant did not move or consent)
People v. Jackson, 192 Mich App 10 (prosecutorial bargaining authority) (discusses prosecutor charging discretion and plea bargaining)
People v. Reagan, 395 Mich 306 (limits on applying strict contract principles to plea bargains) (plea bargains must serve justice, not ordinary commercial rules)
People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (Cobbs procedure) (addresses court’s preliminary assessment and defendant’s right to affirm or withdraw plea)
People v. Killebrew, 416 Mich 189 (sentence‑agreement principles) (addresses sentence agreements and related withdrawal issues)
Ford Motor Co. v. Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425 (mutual mistake definition) (defines mutual mistake in contract context)
Burkhardt v. Bailey, 260 Mich App 636 (contract interpretation rules) (court cannot rewrite unambiguous agreements)
People v. Siebert, 201 Mich App 402 (prosecutor withdrawal in sentencing disputes) (discusses prosecutor’s ability to withdraw in certain sentence‑agreement contexts)
People v. Lombardo, 216 Mich App 500 (plea‑bargain scope and interpretation) (plea terms determined by contract principles but must serve justice)
People v. Cummings, 84 Mich App 509 (finality of plea bargains) (general rule that plea bargains are binding on prosecutor)