People v. White
307 Mich. App. 425
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of obtaining money by false pretenses and one count of conducting a criminal enterprise, with habitual-offender enhancement and restitution totaling $283,245.
- Between 2009 and 2011, Braunstein & Associates advertised mortgage modification services, charging upfront fees with a money-back guarantee, but allegedly employed no attorneys and submitted incomplete or no modification proposals.
- The Attorney General negotiated restitution with defendant before charges were filed; he paid about $10,000 and then ceased payments, leading to formal charges.
- The trial court conducted a Cobbs-style sentencing evaluation but remained concerned with defendant’s failure to timely pay $20,000 in restitution, affecting the sentencing plan.
- Defendant challenged the denial of an evidentiary hearing on plea voluntariness and counsel effectiveness; the panel held the issue law-of-the-case and reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion.
- Defendant argued that the sentence exceeded the Cobbs preliminary evaluation, seeking withdrawal of the plea; the court found the restitution precondition violated and thus not bound by the Cobbs evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary hearing denial abuse | White argues trial court properly denied an evidentiary hearing. | White contends denial was an abuse of discretion and public-policy error. | Not an abuse; law-of-the-case and within discretion. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel in plea | White asserts counsel adequately explained charges and options. | White claims counsel pressured him and was unprepared. | Plea voluntary and informed; no viable unkept defense shown. |
| Withdrawal due to Cobbs evaluation breach | Cobbs evaluation should control or allow withdrawal if sentence exceeds. | Violating restitution precondition voids the Cobbs entitlements. | Not entitled to withdrawal; restitution precondition breached; court not bound by Cobbs. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Serr, 73 Mich App 19 (1976) (cannot rely on later testimony to impeach plea if inconsistent with plea testimony)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary hearing rulings)
- People v Armisted, 295 Mich App 32 (2011) (voluntary, knowing plea requires adequate counsel explanation)
- People v Corteway, 212 Mich App 442 (1995) (defendant must be informed of possible defenses for effective counsel)
- People v Fonville, 291 Mich App 363 (2011) (ineffective assistance when counsel fails to advise on viable defenses)
- People v Kean, 204 Mich App 533 (1994) (preconditions of plea bargains can affect entitlements to relief)
- People v Abrams, 204 Mich App 667 (1994) (treatment-program violation limit withdrawal benefits under plea)
- People v Garvin, 159 Mich App 38 (1987) (violation of plea conditions can foreclose benefits)