PEOPLE v GUYTON

Docket No. 163700. Argued on application for leave to appeal April 26, 2023. Decided 

July 18, 2023.

Candace R. Guyton pleaded guilty in the Kent Circuit Court to one count of armed 

robbery, MCL 750.529. As part of the plea deal, the prosecution agreed not to pursue charges 

against defendant in an unrelated case and to recommend a sentence within the guidelines 

minimum range of 51 to 85 months in prison. The prosecutor also agreed to dismiss the 

supplemental information charging defendant as a third-offense habitual offender. However, the 

amended felony information wrongly classified defendant as a third-felony offender by counting 

a single prior conviction twice; in fact, defendant was eligible to be charged only as a secondoffense habitual offender. The trial court, Mark A. Trusock, J., sentenced defendant at the top of 

the agreed-upon guidelines range to 84 months to 60 years in prison. Defendant later moved to 

withdraw her plea, arguing that it was involuntary and unknowing given that defendant was told 

she was avoiding a third-offense habitual-offender enhancement. The trial court denied the 

motion, agreeing with the prosecution that defendant had received benefit from the plea despite 

the error. The Court of Appeals (TUKEL, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and GADOLA, JJ.) affirmed the 

trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Defendant 

applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and the Court ordered and heard oral argument 

on the application. 509 Mich 920 (2022).

In an opinion by Justice WELCH, joined by Justices BERNSTEIN, CAVANAGH, and BOLDEN,

the Supreme Court held:

The misinformation regarding defendant’s habitual-offender enhancement rendered 

defendant’s guilty plea involuntary and unknowing. Accordingly, the case had to be remanded 

to the trial court to give defendant the opportunity to elect to allow her plea to stand or withdraw 

her plea.

1. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that a guilty or no-contest plea by a defendant be 

voluntary and knowing. These requirements are incorporated by MCR 6.302, which provides 

that a court may not accept a plea of guilty or no contest unless it is convinced that the plea is 

“understanding, voluntary, and accurate.” Courts must substantially comply with the 

requirements of MCR 6.302. Caselaw provides that automatic invalidation of a plea due to a 

Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Syllabus Chief Justice:

Elizabeth T. Clement

Justices:

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

Kyra H. Bolden

This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been 

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

Reporter of Decisions:

Kathryn L. Loomis
violation of MCR 6.302 is only required if the defendant establishes that the waiver was not 

understandingly or voluntarily made. For a plea to be voluntarily and knowingly given, the 

accused must be fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea. Further, under Brady v 

United States, 397 US 742 (1970), the waiver of constitutional rights that are implicated in 

accepting a plea must be a knowing and intelligent act done with “sufficient awareness of the 

relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Thus, a trial court may, in certain 

circumstances, be required to inform a defendant about facts not explicitly required by MCR 

6.302 in order to comply with the due-process requirements that the plea be understanding, 

voluntary, and accurate.

2. In this case, the focal inquiry was not whether defendant received a benefit from the 

plea deal, but whether she was adequately informed and aware of the relevant circumstances 

surrounding the entering of the plea and the waiving of constitutional rights. Awareness of the 

accurate habitual-offender enhancement is clearly a relevant circumstance. Similarly, a plea may 

not be understanding and voluntary when a defendant is misinformed of the benefits of the plea. 

Defendant’s waiver of her constitutional rights, through her guilty plea, was induced, in part, by 

the prosecution’s and trial court’s assertions of an exaggerated benefit of the plea in lieu of 

proceeding to trial. Defendant was led to believe that her guilty plea would result in the 

dismissal of a third-offense habitual-offender enhancement—a likely consequence and relevant 

circumstance of her plea—rather than a second-offense habitual-offender enhancement. 

Specifically, defendant agreed to the plea deal believing that charges against her in a separate, 

unrelated case would be dismissed and that the top end of her guidelines minimum sentence 

range would be reduced by 42 months (from 127 months to 85 months). But the benefit she 

received in relation to the dismissal of the habitual-offender enhancement, given that she was 

only a second-offense habitual offender and not a third-offense habitual offender, was a 

reduction of only 21 months from the top end of her minimum sentence range (from 106 months 

to 85 months). Thus, the misinformation had a significant impact on what defendant believed 

her minimum sentence could have been if she had proceeded to trial. The trial court made an 

error of law and thus abused its discretion by not allowing defendant to withdraw her plea in 

light of this misinformation. Because of the misinformation, defendant did not appreciate what 

she was avoiding by pleading guilty, and therefore, her plea was not made understandingly or 

voluntarily.

3. When a prosecutor seeks an enhanced sentence, it is their responsibility to ensure that 

the defendant receives notice and that such a sentence is legally permissible. It is not the

defendant’s obligation to remember the specific details of their criminal history in order to 

ensure that the charging information is correct. The mere fact that a defendant may correct their 

criminal record under MCL 769.13(4) does not absolve the prosecution of its responsibility to 

provide accurate notice to the defendant. It is the burden of the prosecution to properly notify a 

defendant of their habitual-offender status.

Part III of the Court of Appeals opinion reversed, remainder of the Court of Appeals 

opinion vacated, and case remanded to the trial court to give defendant the opportunity to elect to 

allow her plea to stand or withdraw her plea.
Justice ZAHRA, dissenting, joined by Chief Justice CLEMENT and Justice VIVIANO, 

disagreed with the majority that defendant’s plea was not understanding and voluntary. 

Defendant was fully informed of the penalties and direct consequences of her plea, and she

received precisely what she bargained for: a within-guidelines sentence, calculated without any 

increase of the upper limit of the recommended minimum sentence range required for habitual 

offenders. Justice ZAHRA would have held that a defendant’s misunderstanding as to one portion 

of an overall favorable plea deal does not necessarily render the entire deal unknowing and 

involuntary; rather, the trial court that entered the plea should assess the extent of the 

misinformation or misunderstanding in the context of the entire plea to determine whether the 

plea was understanding and voluntary and whether the defendant was indeed misled. In this 

case, any misunderstanding as to defendant’s habitual-offender status did not render her plea 

unknowing or involuntary, particularly in light of the substantial benefits she received from the 

deal. Moreover, considering the plea in its entirety, defendant was sufficiently aware of the 

overall benefits of the bargain such that she was able to voluntarily make an informed decision to 

enter the plea with an adequate understanding of its consequences. While defendant may have 

been misinformed as to the precise value of her plea deal, any misunderstanding as to her 

habitual-offender status did not render her entire plea unknowing, involuntary, or inaccurate such 

that the trial court was required to allow her the opportunity to withdraw it. Further, this case did 

not involve a misunderstanding that required knowledge of substantive law or court procedure to 

uncover. The number of previous felonies defendant had committed was part of her personal 

criminal history; therefore, whether she could have been convicted as a second- or third-offense 

habitual offender was something she should have known. Regardless, due process does not 

require a per se rule that any misunderstanding in a plea agreement renders the plea unknowing 

and involuntary. Especially given that trial courts may deny requests for plea withdrawal based 

on substantive compliance with MCR 6.302, the extent of the misunderstanding should matter in 

determining whether a plea was understanding, voluntary, and accurate and whether a defendant 

was sufficiently aware of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of a plea.
FILED July 18, 2023

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 163700

CANDACE RENEE GUYTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH 

WELCH, J. 

In this case, we must decide whether defendant Candace Renee Guyton’s guilty plea 

was unknowing and involuntary because it was based on inaccurate information, thus 

rendering the plea constitutionally defective. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of 

armed robbery, MCL 750.529, in exchange for multiple benefits, including the dismissal 

of the supplemental information charging her as a third-offense habitual offender. 

Defendant argues that her plea deal was flawed because she could only be validly charged 

Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

OPINION Chief Justice:

Elizabeth T. Clement

Justices:

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

Kyra H. Bolden
2

as a second-offense habitual offender. We agree, and we hold that this erroneous 

information conveyed during defendant’s plea proceedings and the legally flawed 

agreement that followed render her guilty plea invalid. Therefore, we reverse Part III of 

the Court of Appeals opinion addressing plea withdrawal, vacate the remainder of the 

opinion, and remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court to give defendant the opportunity 

to elect to withdraw her invalid guilty plea. MCR 6.310(C)(3).

I. BACKGROUND 

A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant and codefendant Kenneth Agnew were charged with attempted robbery

of a Popeye’s fast-food restaurant. They were both accused of having worn masks, and 

Agnew was accused of showing an employee what appeared to be a gun while defendant 

carried a plastic bag. When the employee resisted opening the cash register, defendant and 

Agnew allegedly fled the store. According to witness testimony presented by the 

prosecution at the preliminary examination, the “gun” that Agnew displayed was actually 

a toy gun that Agnew had stolen from a Meijer store that same night. Defendant maintained 

that she did not know what Agnew had taken from the Meijer store. She was not armed 

with any weapon. The Grand Rapids Police Department recovered Agnew’s phone from 

an Olive Garden, where he had allegedly acted alone in a robbery earlier that same day. 

When questioned by the police, Agnew implicated defendant in the attempted robbery of 

the Popeye’s. Defendant thereafter admitted her involvement in the robbery to another 

officer and in jail phone calls with Agnew.

Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery, MCL 

750.529. In exchange for the plea, the prosecution agreed not to pursue charges in an 
3

unrelated case and to recommend a sentence within the guidelines minimum range of 51 

to 85 months’ imprisonment. In addition, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the 

supplemental information charging defendant as a third-offense habitual offender. 

However, critical to this appeal, defendant was not legally eligible to be charged as a thirdoffense habitual offender at the time of the plea offer. Instead, she was only eligible to be 

charged as a second-offense habitual offender due to a prior drug offense. The amended 

charging information incorrectly classified defendant as a third-felony offender by doublecounting a single prior conviction. Neither the prosecutor nor the trial court corrected this 

error or informed defendant of it. 

The trial court sentenced defendant to the top of the agreed-upon guidelines range: 

84 months to 60 years’ imprisonment. For his role in the incident, codefendant Agnew, 

who had a prior armed robbery conviction, was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to 

51 months to 80 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery. In a postconviction motion, 

defendant requested to withdraw her plea, arguing that it was involuntary and unknowing 

given that the prosecutor had incorrectly informed her that she was avoiding a third-offense 

habitual offender enhancement. Alternatively, defendant argued that she was entitled to 

resentencing because she was sentenced on the basis of an inaccurate assumption that 

Agnew had a real, functioning, and lethal gun. Defendant requested that the trial court 

correct the presentence investigation report (PSIR) to clarify that the “gun” in Agnew’s 

possession was fake.

The trial court denied the motion for plea withdrawal, agreeing with the prosecution

that defendant received the benefits of the plea bargain. The court also denied defendant’s 

request for resentencing, reasoning that it did not matter whether the gun was real or fake 
4

because it did not rely on that information in sentencing defendant. The trial court did, 

however, order that a supplement to the PSIR could be submitted explaining that the 

Popeye’s employee did not think that the alleged gun flashed by Agnew was real. 

On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion to 

withdraw her guilty plea. People v Guyton, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court 

of Appeals, issued September 2, 2021 (Docket No. 354221), pp 2-4. The panel first noted 

that defendant’s guidelines minimum sentence range without enhancement was 51 to 85 

months’ imprisonment. The top end of that minimum sentence range would have increased

to 106 months if defendant had been charged as a second-offense habitual offender and to 

127 months if she had been charged as a third-offense habitual offender. MCL 777.21; 

MCL 777.62. 

The Court of Appeals noted that defendant had agreed to the plea deal believing that 

charges against her in a separate, unrelated case would be dismissed and that the top end 

of her guidelines minimum sentence range would be reduced from 127 months (as an 

alleged third offender) to 85 months. But with the correct second-offense habitual offender 

enhancement, the top end of her minimum sentence range would have been 106 months. 

Thus, the misinformation led defendant to believe that, by taking the deal, the top end of 

her recommended minimum sentence would be reduced by 42 months. But the benefit she 

actually received, given that she was a second-offense habitual offender and not a thirdoffense habitual offender, was a reduction of only 21 months from the top end of her 

minimum sentence range. The Court of Appeals panel thus acknowledged that defendant 

did not receive the actual benefit of the bargain she thought she had struck. It concluded, 

however, that defendant still obtained significant benefits as a result of the plea. The Court 
5

held that, although there were errors in the plea-taking process, the trial court and 

prosecution substantially complied with MCR 6.302. 

Defendant sought leave to appeal in this Court, and we ordered additional briefing 

and oral argument to address 

whether the appellant’s plea was not understanding, accurate and voluntary 

because the prosecutor misinformed her that by pleading guilty she would 

not be prosecuted as a third habitual offender when, in fact, she could only 

have been prosecuted as a second habitual offender. [People v Guyton, 509 

Mich 920, 920 (2022).] 

B. LEGAL BACKGROUND

A guilty or no-contest plea constitutes a waiver of several constitutional rights and 

thus triggers specific protections for the defendant. The “Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment requires that [a] plea be voluntary and knowing.” People v Cole, 

491 Mich 325, 333; 817 NW2d 497 (2012); US Const, Am XIV. Our court rules directly

incorporate these due process principles. MCR 6.302(A) (“The court may not accept a plea 

of guilty or nolo contendere unless it is convinced that the plea is understanding, voluntary,

and accurate.”). MCR 6.302(B) to (D) set forth the process for courts to follow when 

accepting plea agreements. 

We require courts to substantially comply with the requirements of MCR 6.302, 

such that “ ‘whether a particular departure from [MCR 6.302] justifies or requires reversal 

or remand for additional proceedings will depend on the nature of the noncompliance.’ ” 

People v Saffold, 465 Mich 268, 273; 631 NW2d 320 (2001) (brackets omitted), quoting 

Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 113; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). See also People v Brinkey, 

327 Mich App 94, 97-98; 932 NW2d 232 (2019). As the Court of Appeals has previously 
6

held, “[a]utomatic invalidation of a plea due to a violation of MCR 6.302 is only required 

if the defendant establishes ‘that the waiver was neither understandingly nor voluntarily 

made, not merely that the trial court failed to strictly comply with MCR 6.302(B).’ ”

Brinkey, 327 Mich App at 98 (citation omitted). See also Saffold, 465 Mich at 273-274. 

We have previously said that for a plea to be voluntarily and knowingly given, the accused 

“must be fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea,” and the penalty that will be 

imposed is “[t]he most obvious ‘direct consequence’ of a conviction . . . .” Cole, 491 Mich 

at 333-334 (quotation marks and citations omitted). See also People v Pointer-Bey, 321 

Mich App 609, 616; 909 NW2d 523 (2017) (“[T]he defendant must be fully aware of the 

direct consequences of the plea.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). But that is not 

the whole story: “[w]aivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be 

knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and 

likely consequences.” Brady v United States, 397 US 742, 748; 90 S Ct 1463; 25 L Ed 2d 

747 (1970) (emphasis added).

It follows that “because the understanding, voluntary, and accurate components of 

MCR 6.302(A) are premised on the requirements of constitutional due process, a trial court 

may, in certain circumstances, be required to inform a defendant about facts not explicitly 

required by MCR 6.302.” People v Blanton, 317 Mich App 107, 119; 894 NW2d 613

(2016) (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). The focal inquiry in this 

particular case is thus not whether defendant received a benefit from the bargained plea 

agreement, but rather whether defendant was adequately informed and aware of the 

“relevant circumstances” surrounding the entering of the plea and the waiving of crucial 

constitutional rights. 
7

Awareness of the accurate habitual offender enhancement is clearly a relevant 

circumstance. We have previously recognized that for a defendant to truly be advised of a

maximum possible sentence when entering a plea deal, as required by MCR 6.302(B)(2), 

the defendant must be advised of the maximum possible prison sentence as modified by a 

habitual offender enhancement. People v Brown, 492 Mich 684, 693-694; 822 NW2d 208 

(2012). Otherwise, the defendant has not been advised of the true potential maximum 

sentence. Id. at 694. Specifically, we held in Brown that because the defendant was not 

advised of the consequences of a habitual offender enhancement, he was not accurately 

informed of the consequences of his plea, his plea was not understanding, and he was 

entitled to withdraw his plea if he chose. Id. at 701-702. 

Similarly, depending on the circumstances, a plea may not be understanding and 

voluntary when a defendant is misinformed of the benefits of the plea. See People v 

Graves, 207 Mich App 217, 219-220; 523 NW2d 876 (1994) (holding that, when the 

prosecution promised to dismiss a charge with which the defendant could not legally be 

charged, the defendant was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea was not 

understanding and voluntary). “There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea once 

the trial court has accepted it.” People v Patmore, 264 Mich App 139, 149; 693 NW2d

385 (2004). However, both our common law and MCR 6.310 give a trial court discretion

to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a plea after sentencing. People v Davidovich, 463 

Mich 446, 451; 618 NW2d 579 (2000). To withdraw a plea, a defendant must establish 

“an error in the plea proceeding that would entitle the defendant to have the plea set 

aside[.]” MCR 6.310(C)(3).
8

II. ANALYSIS 

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty 

plea, we must determine if the trial court abused its discretion. Brown, 492 Mich at 688. 

A trial court “abuses its discretion if its decision falls outside the range of principled 

outcomes.” People v Shami, 501 Mich 243, 251; 912 NW2d 526 (2018) (quotation marks 

and citations omitted). 

B. DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT UNDERSTANDING OR VOLUNTARY

Our court rules are designed to comply with the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. See MCR 6.302; US Const, Am XIV; Blanton, 317 Mich App at

119. While due process protections require that all pleas are “understanding, voluntary, 

and accurate,” and MCR 6.302(A) incorporates these constitutional requirements, the rules 

themselves provide little guidance on the specific issue presented in this case. For example, 

our court rules are very clear that the failure of a court to advise a defendant of a minimum 

and maximum penalty for their offense renders a plea unknowing. See MCR 6.302(B)(2) 

(“[T]he court must advise the defendant . . . and determine that each defendant 

understands . . . the maximum possible prison sentence for the offense and any mandatory 

minimum sentence required by law[.]”); see also Blanton, 317 Mich App at 119. But 

ensuring an individual defendant actually understands the relevant circumstances and 

likely consequences of pleading guilty sometimes obligates the trial court to go beyond 

what the court rules require. Indeed, we have explicitly held that an applicable habitual

offender sentence enhancement is a direct consequence of a guilty plea and that such 

information should be conveyed to defendants during their plea proceedings, even though 
9

it is not explicitly required by MCR 6.302. Brown, 492 Mich at 693-694 & n 35, 701-702. 

See also People v Shelton, 412 Mich 565, 569; 315 NW2d 537 (1982) (recognizing that 

“[t]he purpose of requiring a prosecutor to proceed ‘promptly’ to file the [habitual offender 

notice] is to provide the accused with notice, at an early stage in the proceedings, of the 

potential consequences should the accused be convicted of the underlying offense”).

The question we are presented with here is not about defendant having a lack of 

information. Rather, the question we must address is the effect that inaccurate information

has on a guilty plea’s validity. Stated differently, can a plea be understanding or knowingly 

entered into when it was, in significant part, induced on the basis of an inaccurate 

understanding of the minimum and maximum possible prison sentence? We hold that it 

cannot be.

As stated above, “[w]aivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but 

must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant 

circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady, 397 US at 748 (emphasis added). Being 

advised of the likely consequences of a plea is only one part of the constitutional 

requirement. Generally, a defendant must have “sufficient awareness of the relevant 

circumstances.” Id. When a defendant has been misinformed by prosecutors about the 

benefit of the bargain they have struck, the defendant does not have sufficient awareness 

of the relevant circumstances. 

In People v Lawson, 75 Mich App 726, 729-730; 255 NW2d 748 (1977), the 

defendant was told that the plea offer included the prosecution’s promise not to request 

consecutive sentences, even though the crime to which he agreed to plead only allowed for 

concurrent sentencing. The Court in Lawson concluded that the defendant had accepted 
10

the plea on the basis of “an exaggerated belief in the benefits of his plea and that nothing 

was done by the court, the prosecutor or his counsel to correct his misapprehension.” Id.

at 730, citing Hammond v United States, 528 F2d 15, 19 (CA 4, 1975). The court then held 

that because the “defendant surrendered his right to trial in apparent misapprehension of 

the value of commitments made to him, he should be allowed to withdraw his plea.” 

Lawson, 75 Mich App at 730.

We conclude that, like in Lawson, defendant’s waiver of her constitutional rights 

through her guilty plea was induced, in part, by the prosecution’s and trial court’s assertions

of an exaggerated benefit of the plea in lieu of proceeding to trial. Specifically, defendant 

was led to believe that her guilty plea would result in the dismissal of a third-offense 

habitual offender sentence enhancement—a likely consequence and relevant circumstance

of her plea—when she was subject only to a second-offense habitual offender 

enhancement. This had a significant practical impact on what defendant perceived her 

minimum sentence could have been if she had proceeded to trial. As in Lawson, there was 

no correction on the record of the misinformation by the prosecutor, judge, or defense 

attorney. To not allow defendant to withdraw her plea was an error of law and an abuse of 

discretion by the trial court. See People v Franklin, 500 Mich 92, 100; 894 NW2d 561 

(2017) (stating that the trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error 

of law). The Court of Appeals likewise erred by affirming her conviction. 

As the Court of Appeals noted in this case, “the misinformation led defendant to 

believe that her bargain included insulating her minimum sentence from potentially 42 

additional months [3.5 years], when the benefit she actually received was insulation from 

potentially just 21 additional months [1.75 years].” Guyton, unpub op at 4. The difference 
11

of nearly two years between the potential minimum sentence defendant thought she was 

avoiding and what she would actually avoid was significant. This was a relevant 

circumstance of the plea. Rather than focusing on whether a defendant receives any benefit 

from the bargained-for plea, like the Court of Appeals and dissent do in this case, Lawson

provides a better methodology for evaluating this type of error in the plea-taking process. 

Based on the inaccurate third-offense habitual offender charging information, defendant 

had an exaggerated belief in the benefits of the plea agreement, and she consequently 

accepted the agreement to avoid a sentence that could not legally be applied to her. And

again, like in Lawson, no one did anything to correct defendant’s exaggerated belief. 

The prosecution’s error affected the terms of defendant’s plea agreement, and

defendant was not informed of this error before entering her plea. In turn, this 

misinformation led defendant to bargain for the dismissal of her habitual offender 

enhancement without “sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances” because the 

prosecution, regardless of whether the error was unintentional, exaggerated the degree of 

enhancement.1

 Brady, 397 US at 748.

2

 It is also notable that defendant’s lack of sufficient 

1 The inaccurate third-offense habitual offender notice filed in this case appears to have 

been an unintentional mistake. The record contains no information to the contrary. 

Nonetheless, that has no bearing on our analysis. 

2 Notably, we do not hold that defendant’s plea was illusory. Recently, we stated: “A 

defendant may be entitled to withdraw a guilty plea if the bargain on which the plea was 

based was illusory, meaning that the defendant received no benefit from the agreement.” 

People v Stovall, 510 Mich 301, 311; 987 NW2d 85 (2022) (quotation marks omitted; 

emphasis added), quoting People v Harris, 224 Mich App 130, 132; 568 NW2d 149 (1997). 

Defendant here bargained to avoid a habitual offender enhancement and another armed 

robbery charge. Therefore, she did receive some benefit from her plea, even though the

benefit was exaggerated. 
12

awareness was shared by the prosecution and trial court in this case, neither of which 

acknowledged that the error occurred during the plea-taking process. This affected the 

voluntariness and defendant’s understanding of her guilty plea because defendant and the 

prosecution were not bargaining with a full understanding of the factual circumstances if 

the case proceeded to trial. In other words, defendant did not appreciate what she was truly 

avoiding by pleading guilty. Given this fundamental misapprehension of the likely 

consequences and relevant circumstances of her guilty plea, we conclude that defendant’s 

plea was not understandingly or voluntarily made.

The dissent believes that that this opinion opens the floodgates and that “any 

misinformation provided to a defendant, no matter how de minimis, is seemingly sufficient 

to set aside a plea.” We disagree. The mistake here was not a minor one. In this case, a 

clear legal error regarding the applicability of habitual offender notices misled defendant 

into believing that her potential minimum sentence was far greater than what was legally 

possible. Her plea was therefore involuntary and unknowing. Not every mistake or 

misunderstanding in the plea process will rise to the level of being involuntary or 

unknowing, but because the legal error in this case was both clear and significant, we find 

that defendant’s plea was involuntary and unknowing. It is beyond the scope of this 

opinion to determine what other errors might undermine a plea, but we do not hold that any 

minor error will invalidate otherwise valid pleas. 

As a final matter, we reject the prosecution’s and the dissent’s argument that 

defendant should have been aware of her own criminal history and its impact on her 

habitual offender status and that she is now inappropriately using her lack of diligence to 

appeal. When a prosecutor seeks an enhanced sentence, it is their responsibility to ensure 
13

that the defendant receives notice and that such a sentence is legally permissible. See MCL 

769.13(1) (“In a criminal action, the prosecuting attorney may seek to enhance the sentence 

of the defendant . . . by filing a written notice of his or her intent to do so . . . .”); MCL 

769.13(2) (“A notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence . . . shall list the prior 

conviction or convictions that will or may be relied upon for the purposes of sentence 

enhancement.”). Criminal records can be complicated, given that one criminal episode 

often includes multiple charges. The obligation does not fall upon defendants to remember 

the specific details of their prior record.3

 The mere fact that a defendant may correct their

criminal record, MCL 769.13(4), does not absolve the prosecution of its responsibility to 

provide accurate notice to a defendant. In short, it is the prosecution that bears the burden 

of properly notifying a defendant of their habitual offender status. Further, the dissent’s 

assertion that defendants may now use a misunderstanding during plea proceedings as an 

appellate parachute is unpersuasive. There would be no reason for a defendant to hide 

information during plea proceedings that would help the defendant potentially obtain a 

better plea deal. Defendant here would have had the advantage of negotiating with a greater 

understanding of how much prison time she actually faced instead of having to go through 

a prolonged appellate process in which the end result would be, at best, a plea withdrawal. 

Defendants and their counsel well understand that they are better served by negotiating 

with accurate information from the onset. 

3 For example, if a defendant engaged in armed robbery, they could plead to multiple 

crimes that all arose out of that one robbery. While a defendant may understand that they 

pleaded to the crime, they may not remember how many felonies or misdemeanors arose 

out of a single plea proceeding.
14

III. CONCLUSION 

The misinformation regarding defendant’s habitual offender enhancement and the 

failure by the court, prosecutor, and defense attorney to correct the record rendered her plea 

involuntary and unknowing. Therefore, we reverse Part III of the Court of Appeals’ 

opinion, vacate the remainder of the opinion, and remand to the trial court for proceedings 

not inconsistent with this opinion. In particular, the defendant must be given the 

opportunity to elect to allow her plea to stand or withdraw her plea. MCR 6.310(C)(3). 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

Elizabeth M. Welch

Richard H. Bernstein

Megan K. Cavanagh

Kyra H. Bolden
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 163700

CANDACE RENEE GUYTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Defendant pleaded guilty to armed robbery pursuant to a plea 

agreement.1

 In exchange for defendant’s guilty plea, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss a 

separate armed-robbery case in its entirety, as well as a third-offense habitual-offender 

enhancement in the present case. The prosecutor also agreed that defendant would receive 

a minimum sentence within the guidelines range of no more than 51 to 85 months in prison. 

Defendant was subsequently sentenced within the agreed-upon guidelines minimum 

sentence range to 84 months to 60 years in prison. After sentencing, defendant sought to 

withdraw her guilty plea upon discovering that she qualified only as a second-offense

habitual offender, not a third-offense habitual offender,2 explaining that she did not 

understand the full context of her plea agreement. The trial court denied defendant’s 

1 MCL 750.529.

2 Defendant was only eligible to be charged as a second-offense habitual offender at the 

time of the plea offer. The amended charging information incorrectly classified defendant 

as a third-felony offender by double-counting a single prior conviction.
2

motion, finding that defendant’s guilty plea was understanding, voluntary, and knowing

despite the mistake regarding her habitual-offender status. The Court of Appeals affirmed 

the trial court on this issue.3

 The majority now reverses this portion of the Court of 

Appeals’ opinion, holding that the misinformation regarding defendant’s habitual-offender 

enhancement and the failure by the court, prosecutor, and defense attorney to correct the 

record rendered defendant’s plea involuntary and unknowing.

In holding that defendant’s misunderstanding as to one portion of her overall 

favorable plea deal rendered the entire deal unknowing and involuntary, the majority comes 

dangerously close to applying a per se rule that a defendant is entitled to withdraw his or 

her plea whenever he or she is misinformed as to any nuance or “relevant circumstance”

that goes into a plea deal, no matter how slight. Instead, I believe that assessing the nature

of the misinformation and the extent of the misunderstanding in the context of the plea in 

its entirety is necessary to determine whether the plea was understanding and voluntary. 

Such an assessment should be done first by the trial court that took the plea and had an 

opportunity to assess the underlying proceedings and whether the defendant was indeed 

misled. Here, I conclude that any misunderstanding as to defendant’s habitual-offender 

status did not render her plea unknowing or involuntary, particularly in light of the 

substantial benefits that defendant undisputedly received by entering into the plea 

agreement.4

 Considering defendant’s plea deal in its entirety, defendant was sufficiently 

3 People v Guyton, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued 

September 2, 2021 (Docket No. 354221).

4 Additionally, the fact that information about defendant’s prior convictions was known or

should have been known to her works substantially against her claim of appeal.
3

aware of the overall benefits of the bargain such that she was able to voluntarily make an 

informed decision to enter the plea with an adequate understanding of the consequences of 

that plea.

5 I would therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by

denying defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea. I would affirm the judgment of the Court 

of Appeals.

I. LEGAL BACKGROUND

“There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea once the trial court has accepted 

it.”6

 A request to withdraw a plea after sentencing is controlled by MCR 6.310(C), which 

requires a defendant to establish an error in the plea proceedings. MCR 6.310(C)(3) 

provides:

If the trial court determines that there was an error in the plea 

proceeding that would entitle the defendant to have the plea set aside, the 

court must give the advice or make the inquiries necessary to rectify the error 

and then give the defendant the opportunity to elect to allow the plea and 

sentence to stand or to withdraw the plea. If the defendant elects to allow the 

plea and sentence to stand, the additional advice given and inquiries made 

become part of the plea proceeding for the purposes of further proceedings, 

including appeals.

Plea proceedings are governed by MCR 6.302, which provides, in relevant part, as 

follows:

(A) Plea Requirements. The court may not accept a plea of guilty or 

nolo contendere unless it is convinced that the plea is understanding, 

5 See Brady v United States, 397 US 742, 748; 90 S Ct 1463; 25 L Ed 2d 747 (1970)

(holding that, in order to constitute a valid plea, the plea must be a voluntary and a 

“knowing, intelligent act[] done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances 

and likely consequences”).

6 People v Patmore, 264 Mich App 139, 149; 693 NW2d 385 (2004).
4

voluntary, and accurate. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, 

the court must place the defendant or defendants under oath and personally 

carry out subrules (B)-(E).

(B) An Understanding Plea. Speaking directly to the defendant or 

defendants, the court must advise the defendant or defendants of the 

following and determine that each defendant understands:

(1) the name of the offense to which the defendant is pleading; the 

court is not obliged to explain the elements of the offense, or possible 

defenses;

(2) the maximum possible prison sentence for the offense and any 

mandatory minimum sentence required by law . . . ;

(3) if the plea is accepted, the defendant will not have a trial of any 

kind, and so gives up the rights the defendant would have at a trial . . . [;]

* * *

(4) if the plea is accepted, the defendant will be giving up any claim 

that the plea was the result of promises or threats that were not disclosed to 

the court at the plea proceeding, or that it was not the defendant’s own choice 

to enter the plea[.]

* * *

(C) A Voluntary Plea.

(1) The court must ask the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer 

whether they have made a plea agreement. If they have made a plea 

agreement, which may include an agreement to a sentence to a specific term 

or within a specific range, the agreement must be stated on the record or 

reduced to writing and signed by the parties. The parties may memorialize 

their agreement on a form substantially approved by the [State Court 

Administrative Office]. The written agreement shall be made part of the case 

file.

(2) If there is a plea agreement, the court must ask the prosecutor or 

the defendant’s lawyer what the terms of the agreement are and confirm the 

terms of the agreement with the other lawyer and the defendant.

* * *
5

(4) The court must ask the defendant:

(a) (if there is no plea agreement) whether anyone has promised the 

defendant anything, or (if there is a plea agreement) whether anyone has 

promised anything beyond what is in the plea agreement;

(b) whether anyone has threatened the defendant; and

(c) whether it is the defendant’s own choice to plead guilty.

(D) An Accurate Plea.

(1) If the defendant pleads guilty, the court, by questioning the 

defendant, must establish support for a finding that the defendant is guilty of 

the offense charged or the offense to which the defendant is pleading.

* * *

(E) Additional Inquiries. On completing the colloquy with the 

defendant, the court must ask the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer 

whether either is aware of any promises, threats, or inducements other than 

those already disclosed on the record, and whether the court has complied 

with subrules (B)-(D). If it appears to the court that it has failed to comply 

with subrules (B)-(D), the court may not accept the defendant’s plea until the 

deficiency is corrected.

MCR 6.302(A)’s requirement that a plea be “understanding, voluntary, and 

accurate” is “premised on the requirements of constitutional due process . . . .”7

 Strict 

compliance with MCR 6.302 is not required.

8

 Rather, this Court has “adopted a doctrine 

of substantial compliance,” and “ ‘whether a particular departure [from the requirements 

of MCR 6.302] justifies or requires reversal or remand for additional proceedings will 

depend on the nature of the noncompliance.’ ”9

 “Automatic invalidation of a plea due to a 

7 People v Cole, 491 Mich 325, 332; 817 NW2d 497 (2012).

8 People v Brinkey, 327 Mich App 94, 98; 932 NW2d 232 (2019).

9 People v Saffold, 465 Mich 268, 273; 631 NW2d 320 (2001) (brackets omitted), quoting

Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 113; 235 NW2d 132 (1975).
6

violation of MCR 6.302 is only required if the defendant establishes ‘that the waiver was 

neither understandingly nor voluntarily made, not merely that the trial court failed to 

strictly comply with MCR 6.[3]02(B).’ ”10 “In order for a plea to be voluntary and 

understanding, the defendant must be fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea.”11 

“The penalty to be imposed is the most obvious direct consequence of a conviction.”12

“Therefore, MCR 6.302(B)(2) requires the trial court to advise a defendant, prior to the 

defendant’s entering a plea, of ‘the maximum possible sentence for the offense and any 

mandatory minimum sentence required by law . . . .’ ”13 “When a defendant is not fully 

informed about the penalties to be imposed, there is a clear defect in the plea proceedings 

because the defendant is unable to make an understanding plea under MCR 6.302(B).”14

II. ANALYSIS

I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. While I agree with the 

prosecution that the trial court substantially complied with MCR 6.302, substantial 

compliance is not the sole inquiry. Even a plea that complies with this rule might be invalid

and subject to withdrawal under due-process requirements if it was not understanding, 

10 Brinkey, 327 Mich App at 98 (citation omitted).

11 People v Pointer-Bey, 321 Mich App 609, 616; 909 NW2d 523 (2017) (quotation marks 

and citation omitted).

12 Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

13 Id., quoting People v Brown, 492 Mich 684, 689; 822 NW2d 208 (2012).

14 People v Blanton, 317 Mich App 107, 119; 894 NW2d 613 (2016) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted).
7

voluntary, and accurate.15 Nonetheless, I disagree with the conclusion expressed in the 

majority opinion that defendant’s plea was not understanding and voluntary. While 

defendant may have been misinformed as to the precise value of her plea deal, any 

misunderstanding as to her habitual-offender status did not render her entire plea 

unknowing, involuntary, or inaccurate such that the trial court was required to allow her 

the opportunity to withdraw it.

From the outset, there is no dispute whether defendant was fully informed of the 

penalties and direct consequences of her plea. She was. That she did not fully comprehend 

how good of a relative bargain the deal provided does not detract from her knowledge of 

the direct consequences of the actual plea bargain to which she agreed. She explicitly 

understood that, in exchange for her plea, she would be sentenced to a minimum sentence 

within the guidelines range of 51 to 85 months without any sentencing enhancement, and 

she was aware that a separate case, in which she was charged with armed robbery, would 

be dismissed. Defendant explicitly informed the trial court that she understood the plea 

deal. Regardless of whether she was properly charged as a second- or third-offense

habitual offender, defendant received precisely what she bargained for: a within-guidelines 

sentence, calculated without any increase of the upper limit of the recommended minimum 

sentence range required for habitual offenders under MCL 777.21(3)(a) through (c). This 

15 See Cole, 491 Mich at 332 (“While we agree that MCR 6.302(B) through (E) constitute 

explicit requirements imposed on a trial court conducting a plea hearing, the broader 

directive of MCR 6.302(A) that the plea must be ‘understanding, voluntary, and accurate’ 

might, in a given proceeding, encompass more than the explicit requirements of the 

remainder of the court rule. Specifically, the ‘understanding, voluntary, and accurate’

components of subrule (A) are premised on the requirements of constitutional due process, 

which might not be entirely satisfied by compliance with subrules (B) through (D).”).
8

is not a case in which a defendant pleaded guilty expecting one sentence and received a 

much harsher sentence; to the contrary, defendant here received exactly what she bargained 

for and expected. At no time during the sentencing hearing did she express concern over 

the terms of her plea bargain.

A majority of this Court nonetheless concludes that defendant’s plea was

unknowing and involuntary because she misunderstood the precise value of the benefits

that she received. That is, the Court concludes that defendant’s plea was not understanding 

or voluntary because “defendant’s waiver of her constitutional rights through her guilty 

plea was induced, in part, by the prosecution’s and trial court’s assertions of an exaggerated 

benefit of the plea in lieu of proceeding to trial,” which “had a significant practical impact 

on what defendant perceived her minimum sentence could have been if she had proceeded 

to trial.” According to the majority, “[t]his affected the voluntariness and defendant’s 

understanding of her guilty plea because defendant and the prosecution were not bargaining 

with a full understanding of the factual circumstances if the case proceeded to trial.” I do 

not contest the legal premise that some misunderstandings during the plea process might 

render a plea unknowing and involuntary. But this is not such a case.

It should not be lost on anyone that defendant herself was in the very best position 

to know how many prior felony convictions she had when negotiating and entering into the 

plea agreement. Unlike a misunderstanding that requires knowledge of substantive law or

court procedure to uncover, whether defendant could have been convicted as a second- or 

third-offense habitual offender in light of the number of her previous felonies was a fact

that she either knew or should have known given that it was part of her personal criminal 

history. The majority places the full responsibility for this error on the prosecution, citing 
9

the statutory subsections allowing the prosecution to file a notice that it is seeking to 

enhance a defendant’s sentence as a habitual offender.16 However, the majority fails to 

acknowledge the subsection of the statute that allows a defendant to file a motion 

challenging the accuracy of the prior convictions listed in the habitual-offender notice.17 

This is not to say that the statute placed the burden on defendant to inform the court of her 

habitual-offender status. Still, it must be acknowledged that the very misinformation that 

defendant relies on in arguing that her plea was unknowing and involuntary was a 

misstatement of her own prior criminal history, which was already known or should have 

been known to her and which, under the statute, she had the ability to correct.

18

In any event, assuming that defendant was indeed unaware of her habitual-offender

enhancement status, I cannot agree with her that any misunderstanding as to the terms or 

benefits of a plea agreement entitles a defendant to the opportunity to withdraw that plea. 

Due process simply does not require a per se rule that any misunderstanding in a plea 

agreement, no matter how slight, renders the plea unknowing and involuntary. Instead,

courts must consider the extent of any misunderstanding in the context of the plea deal in 

16 See MCL 769.13(1) and (2).

17 See MCL 769.13(4).

18 See United States v Spencer, 836 F2d 236, 239 (CA 6, 1987) (“[W]here a defendant is 

aware of the condition or reason for a plea withdrawal, at the time the guilty plea is entered,

a case for withdrawal is weaker.”).

Under the Court’s holding, it certainly is not hard to imagine that a defendant might

notice an error in a proffered plea bargain but decline to immediately bring that error to the 

court’s attention in the hope that he or she can use that error to later attempt to withdraw 

the plea, long after witnesses have moved and memories have faded. The majority’s 

holding might therefore incentivize defendants to harbor errors such as this one to use as 

an appellate parachute.
10

its entirety. As noted earlier, trial courts have the ability to deny requests for plea 

withdrawal based on substantial compliance with MCR 6.30219—which is explicitly

designed to require understanding, voluntary, and accurate pleas; thus, the extent of the 

misunderstanding should matter in determining whether a plea was understanding, 

voluntary, and accurate.

While there is little Michigan jurisprudence on point, caselaw from the Supreme 

Court of the United States supports the principle that a plea is not per se invalidated when

the defendant is misinformed about one of the benefits he or she is to receive under the 

deal. In Brady v United States, the Supreme Court explained that, in order to constitute a 

valid plea, the plea must be a voluntary and “knowing, intelligent act[] done with sufficient 

awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”20 The Court also noted 

that “[t]he voluntariness of [a] plea can be determined only by considering all of the 

relevant circumstances surrounding it.”21 The Supreme Court in Santobello v New York

explained that if a plea “was induced by promises, the essence of those promises must in 

some way be made known.”22 This caselaw supports the proposition that a defendant does 

not need complete awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of a 

plea; rather, “sufficient awareness” is all that is required.23 Santobello’s focus on the 

19 See Brinkey, 327 Mich App at 98.

20 Brady v United States, 397 US at 748 (emphasis added).

21 Id. at 749.

22 Santobello v New York, 404 US 257, 261-262; 92 S Ct 495; 30 L Ed 2d 427 (1971).

23 Brady, 397 US at 748.
11

“essence” of the prosecution’s promise similarly implies that there is room for some 

misunderstanding as to the benefits of a plea deal.

On this point, I find instructive Hammond v United States.

24 There, defense counsel 

informed the defendant that he faced a 90- or 95-year-sentence if he went to trial, when in 

actuality his maximum sentence could have only been 55 years.25 The defendant pleaded 

guilty pursuant to a plea bargain with a maximum sentence of 25 years and received a 

sentence of 20 years.26 The court in Hammond concluded that defense counsel’s bad advice

was so severe that the defendant may have been induced to enter a guilty plea that he 

otherwise would not have entered had he been given proper advice regarding the maximum 

sentence that he faced.27 The court cautioned that not “every item of misinformation which 

counsel may impart vitiates the voluntariness of a plea. Each case must depend largely on 

its own facts. A mistake of a few years in advice about the length of what would otherwise 

be a long term would not constitute ineffectiveness of counsel.”28 Instead, it was the fact 

that defense counsel’s advice “grossly exaggerated the benefit to be derived from the pleas 

of guilty” that rendered the pleas not voluntary as a product of the ineffective assistance of 

counsel.29 Although Hammond pertained to ineffective assistance of counsel, our Court of 

24 Hammond v United States, 528 F2d 15 (CA 4, 1975).

25 Id. at 16-17.

26 Id. at 16.

27 Id. at 18.

28 Id. 

29 Id. at 19.
12

Appeals has applied it outside that context when addressing an argument that a plea was 

not voluntary because of inducements made by the prosecution.30 All of this supports my 

view that the extent of any misinformation or misunderstanding matters in assessing 

whether a defendant’s plea was voluntary and understanding.

A majority of this Court assures that “[n]ot every mistake or misunderstanding in 

the plea process will rise to the level of being involuntary or unknowing” and that it does 

“not hold that any minor error will invalidate otherwise valid pleas.” Yet the majority 

comes extremely close to applying the very type of bright-line rule that it denounces. The 

majority initially says that a plea cannot “be understanding or knowingly entered into when 

it was, in significant part, induced on the basis of an inaccurate understanding of the 

minimum and maximum possible prison sentence[.]”31 But the majority opinion then goes 

on to contradict itself by holding that defendant’s guilty plea must be set aside because it

“was induced, in part, by the prosecution’s and trial court’s assertions of an exaggerated 

benefit of the plea in lieu of proceeding to trial” and concluding that the misunderstanding 

had a “significant practical impact on what defendant perceived her minimum sentence 

could have been if she had proceeded to trial.”32 Under the analysis expressed in the 

30 See People v Lawson, 75 Mich App 726; 255 NW2d 748 (1977).

31 Emphasis added.

32 Emphasis added. In reaching its holding, the majority relies on Brown and Lawson. I 

believe that both cases are distinguishable.

In Brown, the defendant pleaded guilty as a second-offense habitual offender to 

second-degree home invasion in exchange for dismissal of other charges. Brown, 492 Mich 

at 687-688. The defendant was informed that the maximum sentence for his second-degree 

home-invasion charge was up to 15 years in prison. Id. at 688. But because of the habitualoffender enhancement, he was ultimately sentenced to a prison term of 6 years and 3 
13

majority opinion, any misinformation provided to a defendant, no matter how de minimis, 

is seemingly sufficient to set aside a plea. After all, any misinformation can “in part” 

months to 22 years and 6 months, a significantly higher potential maximum sentence than 

the 15-year sentence he was told was the maximum sentence. Id. This Court agreed with 

the defendant that he should be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea, concluding that 

“before pleading guilty, a defendant must be notified of the maximum possible prison 

sentence with habitual-offender enhancement because the enhanced maximum becomes 

the ‘maximum possible prison sentence’ for the principal offense.” Brown, 492 Mich at 

693-694.

Unlike Brown, this is not a case in which the trial court completely failed to inform 

defendant that her otherwise applicable maximum possible sentence would necessarily be 

enhanced by her habitual-offender status. Instead, defendant was informed of the exact 

guidelines range that she would receive, without any habitual-offender enhancement, and 

that is indeed the sentence she received. Defendant was not led to believe that her potential 

sentence would be one term, when in actuality it would be much greater with the habitual 

enhancement. Defendant received the exact sentencing range that she bargained for; that 

range simply did not provide quite the benefit that she thought it did. Nothing in Brown

stands for the proposition that this type of misunderstanding requires that a defendant be 

given the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea.

Nor is Lawson dispositive. The Court of Appeals in Lawson actually quoted 

Hammond’s standard that “ ‘[w]here . . . counsel’s alleged advice, corroborated by the 

information supplied by the court, grossly exaggerated the benefit to be derived from the 

pleas of guilty, it would follow that the pleas were not voluntary.’ ” Lawson, 75 Mich App 

at 730 (emphasis added), quoting Hammond, 528 F2d at 19. In concluding that the 

defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty because the prosecutor had 

promised not to request consecutive sentences, but the possibility of consecutive terms for 

the crimes committed did not exist, the Court of Appeals in Lawson did not at all suggest 

that any misunderstanding in the plea process requires the opportunity for withdrawal. 

Indeed, its quotation of the Hammond “grossly exaggerated” standard suggests the 

opposite. And in Lawson, the prosecutor’s promise to forgo consecutive sentences 

constituted a key part of the plea agreement. As will be discussed below, the 

misunderstanding in this case was not nearly so significant.
14

induce a plea. And in applying its test, I am not sure that the majority leaves any room for 

the “practical impact” of a misunderstanding to be deemed insignificant.33

Moreover, while the majority opinion cites the proper “sufficient awareness of the 

relevant circumstances and likely consequences” standard from Brady,

34 it puts all of its 

emphasis on the “relevant circumstances” portion of that standard while ignoring the 

“sufficient awareness” language. The majority concludes that “[w]hen a defendant has 

been misinformed by prosecutors about the benefit of the bargain they have struck, the 

defendant does not have sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances.” Under the 

majority opinion’s reasoning, it seems that all aspects of a plea are “relevant” or “factual” 

circumstances of that plea, and a misunderstanding as to any one of them renders a plea 

involuntary and unknowing. That is, in merely concluding that defendant’s habitualoffender status was a “relevant circumstance” of her plea without going on to analyze

whether defendant was sufficiently aware of the entirety of the “relevant circumstances” 

of the plea, the majority seems to set forth the very per se rule that it denies it is creating, 

contrary to the totality approach required by Brady.

35 I again emphasize that the extent of 

the misunderstanding is important in assessing a plea in its entirety to determine whether a 

defendant was sufficiently aware of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of 

a plea.

33 For example, the majority does not require defendant to explain how correcting this 

minor error would have impacted the parties’ plea negotiations or her willingness to plead 

guilty.

34 Brady, 397 US at 748.

35 Id. at 749 (“The voluntariness of [a] plea can be determined only by considering all of 

the relevant circumstances surrounding it.”) (emphasis added).
15

Applying this framework to this case, I conclude that any misunderstanding as to 

defendant’s habitual-offender status did not render her plea unknowing or involuntary, 

particularly in light of the substantial benefits that she undisputedly received by entering 

into the plea agreement. Framed differently, considering the plea deal in its entirety, 

defendant was sufficiently aware of the overall benefits of the bargain such that she was 

able to voluntarily make an informed decision to enter the plea with an adequate 

understanding of the consequences of that plea.

36

Again, regardless of whether defendant was properly charged as a second- or thirdoffense habitual offender, the result of the plea bargain is the same: she received a withinguidelines sentence, calculated without any increase of the upper limit of the recommended 

minimum sentence range required for habitual offenders under MCL 777.21(3)(a) through 

(c). Defendant’s guidelines minimum sentence range without any enhancement was 51 to 

85 months, the upper value of which would have increased to 106 months with a secondoffense habitual-offender enhancement and to 127 months with a third-offense habitualoffender enhancement. The benefits of her plea were not “grossly exaggerated” given that

the discrepancy between the plea’s perceived benefits and its actual benefits was relatively 

minor.37 While defendant might have thought that she was avoiding a potential 21 

additional months by agreeing to the plea deal, she undisputedly avoided an increased 

guidelines minimum sentence range from a habitual enhancement by receiving an 

unenhanced guidelines sentence. Moreover, the dismissal of defendant’s other felony case

36 See Brady, 397 US at 748.

37 See Hammond, 528 F2d at 19.
16

was itself an extremely meaningful benefit. In sum, defendant received benefit from the 

dropping of the second-offense habitual enhancement, in addition to the other significant 

benefits she received from the agreement. It stands to reason, then, that while defendant 

might have been misinformed as to one piece of the plea, she sufficiently understood the 

overall value of the plea agreement for which she bargained. I am simply unable to 

conclude that defendant’s misunderstanding as to one piece of her plea—amounting to a 

potential difference of 21 months in the upper limit of the minimum sentence she was 

facing—was significant enough to render the entire plea unknowing and involuntary. The 

trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to withdraw 

her plea.

III. CONCLUSION

While defendant was slightly misinformed as to the precise value of the benefits of 

her plea deal, when considering the plea in its entirety, any misinformation as to 

defendant’s habitual-offender status did not render her entire plea unknowing or 

involuntary. In concluding to the contrary, this Court improperly suggests that a defendant 

is entitled to withdraw his or her plea whenever there is any misunderstanding as to a 

“relevant circumstance,” no matter how slight, in the plea process (even one based on 

information known to the defendant). For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of 

the Court of Appeals.

Brian K. Zahra

Elizabeth T. Clement

David F. Viviano