Case ID: mich_499/html/0888-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

People v Roark,
    No. 152562; Court of Appeals No. 316467.
   The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing the following issues: (1) whether the defendant was accurately advised of the direct consequences of his guilty plea, including lifetime electronic monitoring; (2) whether the defendant has demonstrated actual prejudice pursuant to MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b); and in particular, (3) whether the defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known about the lifetime electronic monitoring requirement. See, e.g., United States v Timmreck, 441 US 780, 783-784; 99 S Ct 2085; 60 L Ed 2d 634 (1979) (holding that a conviction based on a guilty plea is not subject to collateral attack when all that can be shown is a formal violation of Rule 11); Williams v Smith, 591 F2d 169 (CA 2, 1979) (recognizing that the test applied by the Second Circuit for determining the constitutional validity of a state court guilty plea that was based on inaccurate sentencing information is whether the defendant was aware of actual sentencing possibilities, and, if not, whether accurate information would have made any difference in his decision to enter a plea). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.