PEOPLE v SAMUELS

Docket No. 164050. Argued on application for leave to appeal March 14, 2024. Decided 

July 12, 2024.

Dwight T. Samuels was charged in the Wayne Circuit Court as a fourth-offense habitual 

offender, MCL 769.12, with seven felony counts: one count of assault with intent to commit 

murder, MCL 750.83; one count of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than 

murder, MCL 750.84; one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; one 

count of carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227; and three counts of possession of a firearm 

during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. Defendant’s identical twin 

brother, Duane, was similarly charged; the charges resulted from a fight defendant and his twin 

brother were involved in at a restaurant. The prosecution offered the brothers a package-deal plea 

offer, under which each of them would plead guilty to assault with intent to murder and to one 

count of felony-firearm, in exchange for the remaining charges being dismissed. However, the 

offer was contingent on both brothers accepting the plea offer. At the plea hearing, defendant 

initially objected to the package-deal plea offer, stating that it was “not right,” and when the trial 

court asked how defendant wanted to proceed, defendant stated that he wanted to go to trial. 

However, after his twin brother’s trial counsel indicated that his brother wished to plead guilty, 

defendant changed his plea and informed the trial court that he also wished to plead guilty. 

Defendant and his twin brother both pleaded in accordance with the package-deal plea offer, and 

the trial court accepted the pleas. Neither brother raised the issue of voluntariness during the plea 

colloquy. At sentencing, both defendant and his twin brother moved to withdraw their pleas, 

arguing that they were involuntary because the conditional format of the package-deal plea offer 

was coercive and had left them with no choice but to plead guilty. Without first holding an 

evidentiary hearing, the court, Qiana D. Lillard, J., denied the motions, reasoning that the pleas 

had been entered into freely, knowingly, and voluntarily; the trial court then sentenced defendant 

in accordance with the plea offer. Defendant sought leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, and 

the Court of Appeals, MURRAY, P.J., and KELLY and LETICA, JJ., denied the application in an 

unpublished order entered July 9, 2020 (Docket No. 353302). Defendant sought leave to appeal 

in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting the application, remanded the 

case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the following issues as on leave granted: (1) 

whether a trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of a guilty plea 

that is induced, in part, by an offer of leniency to a relative and, if so, (2) how a trial court is to 

determine whether an offer of leniency to a relative rendered the defendant’s plea involuntary in 

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
fact. 507 Mich 928 (2021). On remand, the Court of Appeals, SAWYER, P.J., and RIORDAN and 

REDFORD, JJ., affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea without 

an evidentiary hearing. 339 Mich App 664 (2021). In reaching that conclusion, the Court of 

Appeals held that “a trial court determines the voluntariness of a guilty plea induced by a promise 

of leniency to a relative, or any other third party, by assessing whether the prosecution had probable 

cause to prosecute the third party at the time the defendant pleaded guilty.” Defendant sought 

leave to appeal, and the Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant 

defendant’s application or take other action. 509 Mich 985 (2022).

In an opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, joined by Chief Justice CLEMENT and Justices

CAVANAGH, WELCH, and BOLDEN, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held:

In a package-deal plea offer, a prosecutor requires that multiple defendants all agree to the 

plea offer for any single defendant to receive the benefit of the plea. When a defendant seeks to 

withdraw his plea on the basis that it was involuntary and the record raises a question of fact about 

the voluntariness of the plea that was made in accordance with a package-deal plea offer to multiple 

defendants, a trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s 

plea was involuntary, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances. This analysis 

requires courts to consider the non-exhaustive factors set forth in In re Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d 277 

(1983). Application of the Ibarra factors is not limited to familial relationships, so the nature of 

the relationship between codefendants is also a relevant factor to be considered at the evidentiary 

hearing. A defendant’s plea is involuntary if, under the totality of the circumstances, their will 

was overborne such that the decision to plead guilty was not the product of free will. The record 

in this case raised a question of fact regarding whether defendant’s plea was involuntary, and his 

plea-hearing testimony did not directly contradict that claim. In light of those conclusions, 

defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether he should be allowed to withdraw his 

plea as being involuntary. The Court of Appeals judgment was reversed, and the case was 

remanded to the trial court to conduct such an evidentiary hearing. 

1. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires that a defendant’s 

guilty or no-contest plea be voluntary and knowing because such a plea constitutes a waiver of 

several constitutional rights. This requirement mandates not only that a defendant enter into a plea 

bargain of their own free will but that the defendant’s decision is a knowing, intelligent act that is 

done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. MCR 6.302 

integrates this constitutional requirement into the Michigan Court Rules. MCR 6.302(A) provides 

that a “court may not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere unless it is convinced that the plea 

is understanding, 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” the 

requirements in MCR 6.302(B) through MCR 6.302(E). In turn, MCR 6.302(C) requires a trial 

court to conduct certain inquiries before accepting a plea to ensure the plea is voluntary. In 

particular, MCR 6.302(C)(4) requires the trial court to question the defendant whether anything 

has been promised to him beyond what is reflected in the plea agreement, whether anyone has 

threatened the defendant, and whether it is the defendant’s own choice to plead guilty. However, 

while the specific requirements of MCR 6.302(C) are directed at ensuring the voluntariness of a 

defendant’s plea, these requirements alone might not form a sufficient inquiry into voluntariness. 
2. In a package-deal plea offer, a prosecutor requires that multiple defendants all agree to 

the plea offer for any single defendant to receive the benefit of the plea. Package-deal plea offers 

might pose a greater danger of inducing false pleas than individual plea offers because of the 

presence of extraneous factors. However, there is nothing in the Michigan Court Rules or 

Michigan caselaw that suggests package-deal plea offers are so unique and so coercive that they 

must always be singled out for special inquiry before a plea can be taken. Instead, when the record 

contains some substantiated allegation that raises a question of fact as to the defendant’s claim that 

their guilty plea was involuntary because it was entered on the basis of a promise of leniency to a 

third party, and when the defendant’s testimony at the plea hearing does not directly contradict 

that allegation, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plea was 

involuntary. This does not mean that a trial court should not consider the special nature of a 

package-deal plea offer at the plea colloquy, just that the trial court is not required to sua sponte 

engage in a special inquiry during the plea hearing whether the mere existence of a package-deal 

plea offer renders the plea involuntary.

3. To determine at a plea-withdrawal hearing whether a package-deal plea offer rendered 

a plea involuntary, courts must apply a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, taking into 

consideration the non-exhaustive factors set forth in Ibarra that have been adopted by other state 

courts. Specifically, courts must (1) determine whether the inducement for the plea was proper, 

making sure that the prosecution did not misrepresent facts to the defendant and that the prosecutor 

had a reasonable and good-faith case against the third parties to whom leniency was promised, (2) 

ensure that the factual basis of the guilty plea was supported by the facts, (3) examine carefully 

the nature and degree of coerciveness, taking into consideration whether promises of leniency to a 

close friend or family member pressured the defendant to enter the plea, making the plea 

involuntary, (4) determine whether the promise of leniency to a third party was an insignificant 

consideration in entering the plea, making it unlikely that the defendant was forced into pleading 

guilty, and (5) consider any other factors that might be relevant to the inquiry, including the age 

of the defendant, whether the defendant or the prosecutor initiated the plea negotiations, and 

whether charges have already been pressed against a third party. Application of the Ibarra factors 

is not limited to familial relationships, so the nature of the relationship between codefendants is 

also a relevant factor to be considered at the evidentiary hearing. This test is preferable to the 

single-factor inquiry adopted by the Court of Appeals. While it is relevant whether the prosecution 

had probable cause to prosecute third parties in a package-deal plea offer, the totality-of-thecircumstances inquiry is more consistent with how voluntariness is traditionally assessed in the 

criminal-law context. Accordingly, guided by the Ibarra factors, a court should determine whether 

a defendant’s plea was voluntary by considering the totality of the circumstances. Stated 

differently, when a defendant seeks to withdraw his plea on the basis that it was involuntary, a 

court should apply those factors to determine whether the plea was the product of an essentially 

free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the defendant’s will has been overborne 

and their capacity for self-determination critically impaired. 

4. In this case, the record raised a question of fact as to whether defendant voluntarily 

waived his due-process rights when he entered his plea. At the plea colloquy, defendant indicated 

a desire to go to trial, and that desire only changed after his twin brother stated that he wanted to 

take the plea offer. Defendant also moved to withdraw his plea before sentencing and agreed with 

the trial court that the package-deal plea offer was coercive. Contrary to the test applied by the 
Court of Appeals, the inquiry did not end just because the prosecution had probable cause to charge 

his twin brother. And notably, defendant’s plea-hearing testimony did not directly contradict his 

claim that his plea was involuntary. For these reasons, defendant was entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing on whether his plea was involuntarily made.

Court of Appeals judgment reversed; case remanded to the trial court for further 

proceedings.

Justice ZAHRA, joined by Justice VIVIANO, dissenting, disagreed with the majority’s 

holding that any defendant who pleads guilty as part of a joint plea offer may seek to withdraw the 

guilty plea by alleging that they were coerced by a promise of leniency to a third-party

codefendant. The majority failed to explain why it expanded its holding to offers of leniency to 

any third party involved in a joint plea offer, rather than limiting it to plea deals involving offers 

of leniency to relatives as ordered by this Court. The facts in Ibarra are procedurally distinct from 

this case because it developed those factors in the context of the plea-taking process, not in the 

context of a plea-withdrawal hearing where it is alleged that the plea-taking process was deficient. 

Therefore, that case is inapposite. Moreover, the state court decisions cited by the majority as 

having adopted the Ibarra factors were also in the context of a plea-taking hearing, not a pleawithdrawal hearing. By adopting the Ibarra factors that are used by California courts during the 

plea-taking process, the majority ignores the combined wisdom of every federal court that has 

recognized that the existing plea-taking framework is sufficient. In fact, this decision results in 

Michigan being the first jurisdiction in the nation to require trial courts to conduct a second plea 

colloquy whenever a defendant who pleaded guilty in a joint plea alleges that his plea was 

involuntary simply because it was part of a joint plea deal. Further, by ensuring that the 

defendant’s plea is understanding, voluntary, and accurate and that it is grounded in fact, MCR 

6.302 already provides an elaborate process to guard the constitutional rights of defendants who 

choose to plead guilty. By allowing defendants who enter a package-deal plea offer that is 

contingent on other charged defendants also pleading guilty a period to revoke the plea by claiming 

involuntariness, the majority’s opinion expands the requirements of MCR 6.302 in ways not 

plainly expressed in the rule. This new requirement will increase the trial court’s workload by 

requiring it to make the same analysis twice—first at the plea-colloquy hearing and again at a pleawithdrawal hearing—before a joint plea deal to multiple defendants is final. This requirement will 

also result in prosecutors offering fewer plea bargains in cases involving multiple defendants, 

unduly delaying already congested trial court dockets, which will be bad for all involved in the 

criminal justice system, including defendants. Justice ZAHRA would not have adopted and 

expanded the Ibarra test to motions to withdraw pleas and would have affirmed the judgment of 

the Court of Appeals. 
FILED July 12, 2024

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. 164050

DWIGHT T. SAMUELS,

Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH 

BERNSTEIN, J.

This case concerns the voluntariness of a defendant’s plea; specifically, we consider 

how voluntariness should be addressed in the context of a package-deal plea offer where 

the prosecutor requires that multiple defendants all agree to the plea offer in order for any 

single defendant to receive the benefit of the plea. We hold that where the record raises a 

question of fact about the voluntariness of such a plea, a trial court must hold an evidentiary 

hearing to consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a defendant’s 

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

plea was involuntary. A defendant’s plea is involuntary if, under the totality of the 

circumstances, their will was overborne such that the decision to plead was not the product 

of free will. Because we find that the record here raises a question of fact regarding whether 

defendant’s plea was involuntary, we remand the case to the trial court to hold such an 

evidentiary hearing.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 19, 2019, defendant and his twin brother, Duane Samuels, were involved 

in a fight at a restaurant.1

 As a result, defendant was charged as a fourth-offense habitual 

offender, MCL 769.12, with assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83; assault 

with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84; felon in possession of 

a firearm, MCL 750.224f; carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227; and three counts 

of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 

750.277b. Defendant’s twin brother was similarly charged. The prosecutor offered a 

package-deal plea offer under which both defendant and his twin brother would plead 

guilty to assault with intent to commit murder and to one count of felony-firearm, in 

exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges; however, the offer was contingent upon 

both defendants accepting the plea offer.

At the plea hearing, defendant objected to the package-deal plea offer, stating that 

it was “not right.” When the trial court asked how defendant wanted to proceed, defendant 

indicated that he wished to go to trial. It appears that defendant changed his mind once his 

1 It does not appear that Duane Samuels has sought leave to appeal. Accordingly, this 

opinion only refers to Dwight Samuels as the sole defendant.
3

twin brother’s trial counsel indicated that his twin brother wished to plead guilty because 

defendant then indicated that he also wished to plead guilty. The two then pleaded in 

accordance with the package-deal plea offer. No issue of voluntariness was raised during 

the plea colloquy, and the trial court accepted the pleas.

At sentencing, defendant and his twin brother moved to withdraw their guilty pleas. 

Defendant argued that the pleas were involuntary. When questioned, defendant and his 

twin brother both agreed that the conditional format of the package-deal plea offer was 

coercive and had left them with no choice but to plead guilty. Without first holding an 

evidentiary hearing, the trial court summarily denied the motions to withdraw the pleas, 

finding that the pleas had been entered into freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. Defendant 

was thereafter sentenced in accordance with the plea offer.

The Court of Appeals initially denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal for 

lack of merit. Defendant sought leave to appeal in this Court, and we remanded the case 

to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted, directing the Court of 

Appeals to address two issues in particular:

(1) whether a trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the 

voluntariness of a guilty plea that is induced in part by an offer of leniency 

to a relative, see People v James, 393 Mich 807 (1975); and if so, (2) how a 

trial court is to determine whether an offer of leniency to a relative ‘rendered 

the defendant’s plea involuntary in fact.’ ” Id. [People v Samuels, 507 Mich 

928, 928 (2021).]

On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to 

withdraw his plea without an evidentiary hearing. People v Samuels, 339 Mich App 664; 

984 NW2d 854 (2021).
4

Defendant again sought leave to appeal in this Court. On May 27, 2022, we ordered 

oral argument on the application, directing the parties to address the same issues that we 

had directed the Court of Appeals to consider on remand. People v Samuels, 509 Mich 985

(2022).

II. GUILTY PLEAS 

“This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s ruling on a motion to 

withdraw a plea.” People v Brown, 492 Mich 684, 688; 822 NW2d 208 (2012). An abuse 

of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision results in an outcome that falls outside 

the range of principled outcomes, People v Seewald, 499 Mich 111, 116; 879 NW2d 237 

(2016), or when a trial court makes an error of law, People v Rajput, 505 Mich 7, 11; 949 

NW2d 32 (2020). However, to the extent that a decision implicates constitutional issues, 

this presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Johnson v VanderKooi, 509 Mich 

524, 534; 983 NW2d 779 (2022).

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

thus triggers specific protections for the defendant.” People v Guyton, 511 Mich 291, 298; 

999 NW2d 393 (2023). “For a plea to constitute an effective waiver of these rights, the 

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the plea be voluntary and 

knowing.” People v Cole, 491 Mich 325, 332-333; 817 NW2d 497 (2012). This 

requirement mandates not only that a defendant enter into a plea bargain of their own free 

will, but that their decision is a “knowing, intelligent act[] done with sufficient awareness 

of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v United States, 397 US 
5

742, 748; 90 S Ct 1463; 25 L Ed 2d 747 (1970). See also Cole, 491 Mich at 333; People v 

Cipriano, 431 Mich 315, 333-334; 429 NW2d 781 (1988).

This constitutional requirement has been integrated into the Michigan Court Rules 

under MCR 6.302. MCR 6.302(A) states that “[t]he court may not accept a plea of guilty 

or nolo contendere unless it is convinced that the plea is understanding, 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).” MCR 

6.302(C) specifically addresses whether a plea is voluntary, and it requires a trial court to 

conduct certain inquiries before accepting the plea. When a plea agreement exists, the trial 

court must ask the defendant whether anything has been promised to him beyond what is 

reflected in the plea agreement, “whether anyone has threatened the defendant,” and 

“whether it is the defendant’s own choice to plead guilty.” MCR 6.302(C)(4).

This Court has previously rejected the notion that compliance with MCR 6.302(C) 

necessarily renders a plea voluntary.

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). [Cole, 

491 Mich at 332.]

In other words, while the specific requirements of MCR 6.302(C) are directed at ensuring 

the voluntariness of a defendant’s plea, these requirements alone might not form a 

sufficient inquiry into voluntariness. Here, we are presented with such a claim: defendant 
6

argues that, despite the trial court’s adherence to MCR 6.302(C), his plea was not 

voluntarily made because the package-deal plea offer coerced him into pleading guilty for 

the sake of his twin brother. 

III. PACKAGE-DEAL PLEA OFFERS

While this Court has previously held that a promise of leniency to a relative may 

render a guilty plea involuntary as a matter of fact, James, 393 Mich at 808,

2 the broader 

question of whether a package-deal plea offer can render a defendant’s plea involuntary is 

a question of first impression before this Court. Relevant here, however, is People v 

Lamorand, 481 Mich 891, 891 (2008), in which this Court reversed the trial court’s “order 

denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and remand[ed] [the] case” to the trial 

court on the basis that “there was an insufficient factual basis to support” the plea. Justice

KELLY concurred in the result reached, but she would have remanded the case to the trial 

court for different reasons. Id. at 892 (KELLY, J., concurring). In particular, Justice KELLY

would have instead addressed the same issue raised in this case and adopted the test set 

forth by the California Supreme Court in In re Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d 277; 666 P2d 980 (1983). 

Lamorand, 481 Mich at 892 (KELLY, J., concurring). Both Lamorand and Ibarra

concerned package-deal plea offers. In Lamorand, 481 Mich at 892 (KELLY, J., 

concurring), the defendant argued that the plea offer was coercive because rejecting it 

would have exposed his family members to more serious charges, whereas in Ibarra, 34 

2 James is not an outlier in this regard, and it is consistent with longstanding Court of 

Appeals precedent. See People v Forrest, 45 Mich App 466; 206 NW2d 745 (1973); 

People v Walker, 75 Mich App 552; 255 NW2d 658 (1977); People v Perry, 119 Mich App 

98; 326 NW2d 437 (1982); People v O’Neal, 122 Mich App 370; 333 NW2d 56 (1983).
7

Cal 3d at 287, the defendant argued that the plea offer was coercive because he was afraid 

his unrelated codefendants would have harmed the defendant if he did not accept the offer.

In Ibarra, the California Supreme Court noted that package-deal plea offers may be 

unreasonable because of the extraneous factors that might bear on a defendant’s decision 

to plead guilty, Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d at 287, as illustrated by the arguments of the defendants 

in Lamorand and Ibarra. “Because such considerations do not bear any direct relation to 

whether the defendant himself is guilty, special scrutiny must be employed to ensure a 

voluntary plea.” Id. The Ibarra court thus held that when a defendant pleads guilty 

pursuant to a package-deal plea offer, a trial court must conduct a totality-of-thecircumstances inquiry to determine the voluntariness of such a plea. Instead of holding, as 

the Court of Appeals did here, that such an inquiry may be conducted at an evidentiary 

hearing post-plea, Samuels, 339 Mich App at 671-680, the Ibarra Court held that such an 

inquiry must take place whenever a plea is taken pursuant to a package-deal plea offer, 

Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d at 286-288. In other words, the Ibarra court placed a duty on trial courts 

to determine at the plea colloquy, and not afterwards, whether such pleas are voluntary.

In her Lamorand concurrence, Justice KELLY stated that she would have addressed 

package-deal pleas and adopted the Ibarra holding despite the increased burden this would 

place on trial courts. Lamorand, 481 Mich 891 (KELLY, J., concurring). However, given 

that the majority instead reversed the trial court because there was an insufficient factual 

basis to support the defendant’s guilty plea, id. at 891-892 (order of the Court), the full 

Court has not addressed this issue.

We agree with the Ibarra court that certain aspects of package-deal plea offers might 

pose a greater danger of inducing false pleas than individual plea offers because of the 
8

presence of extraneous factors. See Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d at 287; Bordenkircher v Hayes, 434 

US 357, 364 n 8; 98 S Ct 663; 54 L Ed 2d 604 (1978) (recognizing that a package-deal plea 

offer “might pose a greater danger of inducing a false guilty plea by skewing the assessment 

of the risks a defendant must consider”). However, to the extent that the Ibarra court 

determined it appropriate to go so far as to mandate that trial courts police the voluntariness 

of plea offers at the plea colloquy, we decline to do the same. There is nothing in the court 

rules or our jurisprudence that suggests package-deal plea offers are so unique and so 

coercive that they must always be singled out for special inquiry before a plea can be 

taken.3 Instead, we agree with the Court of Appeals below that our traditional rules 

governing evidentiary hearings apply. See People v Jackson, 203 Mich App 607, 612; 513 

NW2d 206 (1994) (stating that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue 

of voluntariness when their challenge raises a question of fact); People v White, 307 Mich 

App 425, 430-431; 862 NW2d 1 (2014) (holding that an evidentiary hearing is not 

necessary where the defendant’s assertions are inconsistent with their own testimony). 

Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that

when the record contains some substantiated allegation that raises a question 

of fact as to the defendant’s claim that his or her guilty plea was involuntary 

because it was entered on the basis of a promise of leniency to a relative, and 

when the defendant’s testimony at the plea hearing does not directly 

contradict that allegation,[4] the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing 

3 Of course, an amendment to the court rules could explicitly direct that such consideration 

be given at plea colloquies going forward, much like how MCR 6.302(B)(2) was amended 

following our decision in Cole. MCR 6.302(B), as adopted June 20, 2012. 491 Mich 

lxxxiv, lxxxiv-lxxxv (2012).

4 While a defendant’s argument that a plea was involuntary cannot be directly contradicted 

by their testimony at the plea hearing, we note that a defendant’s answers to questions at 
9

to determine whether the plea was involuntary. [Samuels, 339 Mich App 

at 674.]

This is not to say that a trial court need not consider the special nature of a package-deal 

plea offer at the plea colloquy. Due-process concerns mandate that a trial court ensure that 

a plea is made voluntarily, as do our court rules. See MCR 6.302(A). This may require a 

consideration of whether a package-deal plea offer is unduly coercive under the facts of a 

specific case, where, as here, a defendant indicates that such a plea offer has a bearing on 

the defendant’s decision to plead guilty. However, we simply decline to hold that, as a 

matter of law, a trial court must sua sponte engage in a special inquiry during the plea 

hearing whether the mere existence of a package-deal plea offer renders the plea 

involuntary. See James, 393 Mich at 808 (“While a promise of leniency for a relative does 

not in itself amount to coercion so as to make a guilty plea involuntary as a matter of law, 

we recognize that it may render a plea involuntary as a matter of fact.”).5

IV. THE IBARRA FACTORS

Having determined that, absent special circumstances, a trial court need not engage 

in a specialized inquiry into the voluntariness of a package-deal plea offer before taking a 

plea, we now consider what review a trial court must engage in at a subsequent evidentiary 

the plea colloquy do not, standing alone, justify denying an evidentiary hearing on the issue 

of voluntariness. See Cole, 491 Mich at 332 (recognizing that due process might require a 

court to go beyond the inquiries specifically outlined in our court rules).

5 Although this case involves a close familial relationship between twin brothers, we note 

that such a relationship is not necessary for a finding that an evidentiary hearing is 

warranted. Instead, the nature of the relationship at issue is more properly considered under 

the totality-of-circumstances analysis that we adopt for assessing the voluntariness of any 

package-deal plea offer.
10

hearing. The Court of Appeals, relying on federal court caselaw, held that “a trial court 

determines the voluntariness of a guilty plea induced by a promise of leniency to a relative, 

or any other third party, by assessing whether the prosecution had probable cause to 

prosecute the third party at the time the defendant pleaded guilty.” Samuels, 339 Mich App 

at 679.

This is in contrast with the approach articulated by the California Supreme Court in 

Ibarra and adopted by other state courts.

6

 In Ibarra, the California Supreme Court listed 

several factors that must be considered in a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis when 

determining whether a package-deal plea offer has rendered a plea involuntary.

First, the court must determine whether the inducement for the plea is proper. 

The court should be satisfied that the prosecution has not misrepresented 

facts to the defendant, and that the substance of the inducement is within the 

proper scope of the prosecutor’s business. The prosecutor must also have a 

reasonable and good faith case against the third parties to whom leniency is 

promised. . . .

6 See, e.g., State v Solano, 150 Ariz 398, 402; 724 P2d 17 (1986) (en banc) (adopting the 

four core Ibarra factors and “any other relevant factor”); State v Tietjens, 151 Ariz 560, 

562; 729 P2d 914 (1986) (en banc) (reaffirming the Ibarra factors adopted by the Solano

court); State v Danh, 516 NW2d 539, 542-543 (Minn, 1994) (holding that familial packagedeal plea offers inherently run a high risk of coercion under notions of due process because 

of the likelihood that a “defendant, who would otherwise exercise [their] right to a jury 

trial, will plead guilty out of a sense of family loyalty”); Butala v State, 664 NW2d 333, 

339 (Minn, 2003) (reaffirming the Minnesota Supreme Court’s reasoning in Danh); State 

v Williams, 117 Wash App 390, 399; 71 P3d 686 (2003) (holding that the package nature 

of a plea deal involving a father and son must be disclosed to the court and the court must 

specifically inquire about whether the codefendant pressured the defendant to go along 

with the plea and carefully question the defendant to ensure he is acting of his own free 

will); Commonwealth v DiBenedetto, 491 Mass 390, 407; 203 NE3d 579 (2023) (holding 

that judges must “consider the traditional types of coercion and the unique pressure from a 

co-defendant or family member that might be present in a package deal”) (quotation marks 

and citation omitted).
11

Second, the factual basis for the guilty plea must be considered. If the 

guilty plea is not supported by the evidence, it is less likely that the plea was 

the product of the accused’s free will. The same would be true if the 

“bargained-for” sentence were disproportionate to the accused’s culpability.

Third, the nature and degree of coerciveness should be carefully 

examined. Psychological pressures sufficient to indicate an involuntary plea 

might be present if the third party promised leniency is a close friend or 

family member whom the defendant feels compelled to help. . . .

Fourth, a plea is not coerced if the promise of leniency to a third party 

was an insignificant consideration by a defendant in his choice to plead 

guilty. For example, if the motivating factor to plead guilty was the 

realization of the likelihood of conviction at trial, the defendant cannot be 

said to have been “forced” into pleading guilty, unless the coercive factors 

present had nevertheless remained a substantial factor in his decision.

Our list is by no means exhaustive. Other factors which may be 

relevant can and should be taken into account at the inquiry. For example, 

the age of the defendant, whether defendant or the prosecutor had initiated 

the plea negotiations, and whether charges have already been pressed against 

a third party might be important considerations. [Ibara, 34 Cal 3d at 288-

290 (citations omitted).]

Because we do not limit application of the Ibarra factors to familial relationships, the 

nature of the relationship between codefendants is also a relevant factor to be considered 

at the evidentiary hearing.

We conclude that a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry, as outlined by the nonexhaustive Ibarra factors, is preferable to the single-factor inquiry that the Court of 

Appeals adopted. It is of course relevant whether the prosecution has probable cause to 

prosecute the third parties in a package-deal plea offer—both the Court of Appeals and the 

Ibarra court agree on that point. However, the Ibarra opinion goes further in recognizing 

that other factors may also be relevant to this inquiry. We believe that this broad totalityof-the-circumstances inquiry is more consistent with how voluntariness is traditionally 
12

assessed in the criminal-law context. See Cipriano, 431 Mich at 333-334 (holding that the 

voluntariness of a confession is assessed under a totality-of-circumstances inquiry); People 

v Stewart, 512 Mich 472, 481; 999 NW2d 717 (2023). Guided by the Ibarra factors, a 

court should consider the totality of the circumstances and determine whether a defendant’s 

plea was involuntary, i.e., whether the plea was “the product of an essentially free and 

unconstrained choice by its maker,” or whether the defendant’s “will has been overborne 

and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired . . . .” Cipriano, 431 Mich at 

334 (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Stewart, 512 Mich at 481.

We recognize, as Justice KELLY did in Lamorand, that consideration of the Ibarra

factors at an evidentiary hearing may increase the burden on trial courts but that doing so 

is appropriate: “By considering the Ibarra factors, courts can find a middle ground. 

Prosecutors can continue to use the valuable tool of package-deal plea agreements, and 

those accused can be protected in accordance with their constitutional rights from unlawful 

coercion to plead guilty.” Lamorand, 481 Mich at 895 (KELLY, J., concurring).7

V. APPLICATION

We now consider whether defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding 

the voluntariness of his plea. Because we believe that defendant sufficiently fulfilled the 

7 The dissent contends that adopting the Ibarra factors will make plea deals “difficult or 

unworkable” for prosecutors and will double the work for trial courts. We disagree. Our 

opinion does not require an evidentiary hearing every time there is a package-deal plea 

offer, nor are we changing the burden for what defendants must prove in order to establish 

entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. Instead, our trial courts will continue to assess pleas 

under MCR 6.302, and the Ibarra factors only apply to guide the lower courts in assessing 

voluntariness in the context of package-deal plea offers.
13

necessary conditions, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ holding that that defendant is not 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing concerning the voluntariness of his plea. The record 

raises a question of fact as to whether defendant voluntarily waived his due-process rights.

The plea colloquy transcript reveals that defendant indicated a desire to go to trial that only 

changed after his twin brother stated that he wished to take the plea offer. Moreover, 

defendant sought to withdraw his plea before sentencing and agreed with the trial court that 

the package-deal plea offer was coercive. Although the record suggests that the 

prosecution had probable cause to charge defendant’s twin brother, that does not end the 

inquiry under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Further, defendant’s plea-hearing 

testimony does not directly contradict his claim that his plea was involuntarily made. 

Accordingly, we hold that defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question 

of voluntariness. At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court will apply the non-exhaustive 

Ibarra factors in conducting a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis to determine whether 

defendant voluntarily entered a guilty plea.

VI. CONCLUSION

We hold that a defendant may be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question 

of voluntariness where the record raises a question of fact as to whether the defendant’s 

plea was induced by a promise of leniency to a third party. At such an evidentiary hearing, 

the trial court must conduct a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry, applying the nonexhaustive Ibarra factors where relevant. Because defendant successfully raised a question 

of fact and because his plea-hearing testimony does not directly contradict that claim, we 
14

reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for the 

trial court to conduct such an evidentiary hearing. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch 

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. 164050

DWIGHT T. SAMUELS,

Defendant-Appellant.

ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).

This case concerns a criminal defendant who, with the help of his twin brother, beat 

and shot a man in a Detroit coney island restaurant. Defendant, Dwight T. Samuels, and 

his twin brother were indicted for assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83; 

assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84; felon in 

possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227; and 

three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.277b. 

Defendant was also charged as a fourth-offense habitual offender under MCL 769.12. The 

Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office offered the brothers a joint plea deal, meaning that the 

deal’s validity was conditional on both brothers accepting it. The prosecution explained 

that individual plea deals were not offered to the brothers because it would be difficult to 

explain to the jury why only one brother was on trial and which brother it was who used 

the gun. The twins accepted the plea offer, and the trial court conducted a full plea colloquy 

as required by applicable law and court rule. Defendant then moved to withdraw his guilty 

plea, arguing that it was involuntary because his plea was made pursuant to a joint plea 
2

deal offered to a codefendant relative. The trial court denied his motion to withdraw, and 

the Court of Appeals denied defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal.1

 

Defendant applied for leave to appeal in this Court, and we remanded as on leave granted, 

directing the Court of Appeals to consider: 

(1) whether a trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the 

voluntariness of a guilty plea that is induced in part by an offer of leniency 

to a relative, see People v James, 393 Mich 807 (1975); and if so, (2) how a 

trial court is to determine whether an offer of leniency to a relative “rendered 

the defendant’s plea involuntary in fact. Id.”[2]

On remand, the Court of Appeals again denied relief to defendant.

3 Defendant again sought

leave to appeal in this Court, and we directed the parties to brief the same two questions 

considered by the Court of Appeals on remand, i.e., “whether a trial court is required to 

hold an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of a guilty plea that is induced in part by 

an offer of leniency to a relative” and “how a trial court is to determine whether an offer 

of leniency to a relative ‘rendered the defendant’s plea involuntary in fact.’ ”4

Presumably, then, we would now decide the procedure a trial court must apply when 

resolving a motion to withdraw a plea that is allegedly involuntary solely because it was 

part of a joint plea deal offered to a relative. But the majority opinion improvidently and 

without explanation ignores the scope of this appeal, the parties’ arguments, and the content

1 People v Samuels, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 9, 2020 

(Docket No. 353302).

2 People v Samuels, 507 Mich 928, 928 (2021) (emphasis added). 

3 People v Samuels, 339 Mich App 664; 984 NW2d 854 (2021).

4 People v Samuels, 509 Mich 985, 985 (2022) (emphasis added).
3

of this Court’s prior orders to hold that any defendant who pleads guilty as part of a joint 

plea offer may seek to withdraw the guilty plea based merely on the allegation that he or 

she was coerced by a promise of leniency to a third party. To be clear, no party briefed

whether all joint pleas are de jure suspect because one of the defendants might have been 

coerced by an offer of leniency to a third party. The majority opinion does not explain why 

it has fashioned its ruling wider than the scope of defendant’s appeal and briefing. 

Specifically, the majority opinion directs lower courts to apply a test created in In 

re Ibarra5 whenever a defendant who pleaded guilty subject to a joint plea deal alleges that 

he or she was coerced by an offer of leniency to a codefendant. The majority opinion 

claims that Ibarra’s application has been “adopted by other state courts,” and in support of 

this claim, the majority opinion cites opinions from four different state courts. But Ibarra

is procedurally distinct from this case; therefore, it is inapposite. Likewise, none of the 

other state court opinions cited by the majority applied Ibarra’s test to motions to withdraw 

a guilty plea. This Court may be the first in the nation to apply Ibarra to a motion to 

withdraw a guilty plea. 

This is a significant distinction. Ibarra dealt only with the plea-taking process, not 

post-plea claims that the plea-taking process was deficient. Michigan applies MCR 6.302,

which provides an elaborate process to guard the rights of an accused who elects to offer a 

plea of guilty. MCR 6.302(A) provides that a trial court “may not accept a plea of guilty 

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

accurate.” Other MCR 6.302 subrules require a trial court to engage in a plea colloquy to 

5 In re Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d 277; 666 P2d 980 (1983).
4

ensure the defendant’s plea is understanding, voluntary, and accurate and that it is grounded 

in fact.

6

 In this case, the majority opinion provides defendants who enter a package plea 

deal contingent on other charged defendants also pleading guilty a period to revoke the 

plea by claiming involuntariness. This newly imposed requirement doubles the trial courts’

work, holding that in addition to MCR 6.302’s requirements at the plea-taking stage a trial 

court must also “apply the non-exhaustive Ibarra factors in conducting a totality-of-thecircumstances analysis to determine whether defendant voluntarily entered a guilty plea.” 

Accordingly, a trial court may now have to conduct the same analysis twice before a joint 

plea made to multiple defendants is final.

7

 

The majority opinion presumes without explanation that this double analysis will 

better protect defendants’ rights. Further, the majority opinion summarily dismisses 

weighty concerns about the efficiency of trial courts’ dockets and risks that a defendant 

may give different answers between the plea colloquy and the hearing on the motion to 

withdraw a plea, forcing the trial court to make difficult factual and legal findings. Further, 

the majority opinion fails to grasp the likelihood that prosecutors will offer substantially 

6 See MCR 6.302(B), (C), and (D). 

7 The majority opinion notes that defendant’s claim of involuntariness is tied to concerns 

over his twin brother going to trial. And as I have noted, this appeal, all the briefing before 

this Court and the Court of Appeals, this Court’s order remanding the case to the Court of 

Appeals, and this Court’s order directing oral argument on the application focused on the 

standard applicable to a plea contingent on leniency to a relative. Now, at the eleventh 

hour, the majority does an about-face, holding that “we do not limit application of the 

Ibarra factors to familial relationships[.]” The majority does not deign to explain the 

significant expansion of its holding or offer any reasoning whatsoever to support its change 

of mind; nor does the majority even try to cite a single jurisdiction anywhere in the country 

that offers unrelated codefendants who enter joint plea deals anything like the expansive 

protection offered by the majority opinion. 
5

fewer plea bargains in cases involving multiple defendants, particularly those with familial 

ties between defendants, because it will take twice as long and twice as much work to 

confirm the plea’s validity if the defendant challenges it. Such pleas are often not entered 

until the proceedings are at or near the scheduled trial date, when the prosecution has 

witnesses subpoenaed and prepared for trial. Prosecutors may well decide to offer no pleas

because it will be difficult or unworkable to assemble the witnesses for a trial date well in 

the future, after a defendant’s buyer’s remorse results in a claim of involuntariness resulting 

in another trial date. All told, the majority opinion expands the requirements of MCR 6.302 

in ways not plainly expressed in the rule, will unduly delay our already congested trial 

court dockets, will result in fewer plea offers for many defendants, and will impose greater 

burdens on many already overworked prosecutors. Most importantly, however, is that the 

majority opinion is bad for the people of Michigan who expect our courts to run efficiently 

and equitably for all involved in our criminal justice system: defendants, victims, jurors,

law enforcement, and witnesses. Accordingly, I dissent.

I. ANALYSIS

I agree with the majority opinion’s description of the facts of this case. The majority 

opinion glosses over, however, the full extent of the protections afforded defendants by

MCR 6.302, which governs the taking of a plea. In full, MCR 6.302 provides: 

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

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

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).
6

(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 . . . . ; 

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

mandatory minimum sentence required by law, including a requirement for 

mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring under MCL 750.520b or 750.520c;

(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, including 

the right:

(a) to be tried by a jury;

(b) to be presumed innocent until proved guilty;

(c) to have the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

defendant is guilty;

(d) to have the witnesses against the defendant appear at the trial;

(e) to question the witnesses against the defendant;

(f) to have the court order any witnesses the defendant has for the 

defense to appear at the trial;

(g) to remain silent during the trial;

(h) to not have that silence used against the defendant; and

(i) to testify at the trial if the defendant wants to testify.

(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;

(5) if the plea is accepted, the defendant may be giving up the right to 

appeal issues that would otherwise be appealable if she or he were convicted 

at trial. Further, any appeal from the conviction and sentence pursuant to the 

plea will be by application for leave to appeal and not by right;

The requirements of subrules (B)(3) and (B)(5) may be satisfied by a 

writing on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office. If a 
7

court uses a writing, the court shall address the defendant and obtain from 

the defendant orally on the record a statement that the rights were read and 

understood and a waiver of those rights. The waiver may be obtained without 

repeating the individual rights.

(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 SCAO. 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.

(3) If there is a plea agreement and its terms provide for the 

defendant’s plea to be made in exchange for a sentence to a specified term or 

within a specified range or a prosecutorial sentence recommendation, the 

court may

(a) reject the agreement; or

(b) accept the agreement after having considered the presentence 

report, in which event it must sentence the defendant to a specified term or 

within a specified range as agreed to; or

(c) accept the agreement without having considered the presentence 

report; or

(d) take the plea agreement under advisement.

If the court accepts the agreement without having considered the 

presentence report or takes the plea agreement under advisement, it must 

explain to the defendant that the court is not bound to follow an agreement 

to a sentence for a specified term or within a specified range or a 

recommendation agreed to by the prosecutor, and that if the court chooses 

not to follow an agreement to a sentence for a specified term or within a 

specified range, the defendant will be allowed to withdraw from the plea 

agreement. A judge’s decision not to follow the sentence recommendation 

does not entitle the defendant to withdraw the defendant’s plea.
8

(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.

(2) If the defendant pleads nolo contendere, the court may not question 

the defendant about participation in the crime. The court must:

(a) state why a plea of nolo contendere is appropriate; and

(b) hold a hearing, unless there has been one, that establishes 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.

(F) Plea Under Advisement; Plea Record. The court may take the plea 

under advisement. A verbatim record must be made of the plea proceeding.

In sum, MCR 6.302 ensures that no trial judge may accept a guilty plea without 

confirming—based on all the evidence before the court—that the defendant’s plea is 

understanding, voluntary, and accurate. 

Strangely, the majority opinion does not discuss the details of MCR 6.302 or MCR 

6.310 before adopting Ibarra’s totality-of-the-circumstances test. This is strange because 
9

MCR 6.302 governs the taking of a guilty plea, and MCR 6.310 governs when a defendant 

may withdraw his or her guilty plea after a trial court has accepted it. Relevant here, MCR 

6.310(B) and (C) provide that

a plea may be withdrawn on the defendant’s motion or with the defendant’s 

consent, only in the interest of justice . . . . If the defendant’s motion is based 

on an error in the plea proceeding, the court must permit the defendant to 

withdraw the plea 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[.][8]

Thus, under MCR 6.310, a plea may only be withdrawn—absent circumstances 

indisputably not present in this case—if the trial court determines there was an error in the 

original plea-taking process, which, again, is governed by MCR 6.302. The majority 

opinion either ignores or misunderstands the procedural posture of this case, treating the 

case as if it is about a defect in the plea-taking process and not about a motion to withdraw 

a plea, simply because it is a joint plea deal offered to a relative. Alternatively, the majority 

opinion appears to create an exception to MCR 6.310, holding that a defendant who does 

not allege an error in the plea-taking process but solely alleges that his plea was involuntary 

because it was a part of a joint plea offered to any codefendant may withdraw his plea if 

the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis favors him. Regardless of whether the former or 

the latter is the majority’s intention, the Ibarra totality-of-the-circumstances test that the 

8 MCR 6.310 also allows a defendant to withdraw a plea without alleging an error in the 

plea-taking process if the plea was conditioned on a sentence within a certain range “and 

the court states that it is unable to follow the agreement,” MCR 6.310(B)(2)(a), or if other 

factual and legal findings are made by the court, MCR 6.310(B)(2)(b) and (c). Because 

defendant does not allege that the prosecution promised him a certain sentence length or 

certain favorable factual and legal findings, only the portion of MCR 6.310 providing for 

withdrawal of a plea because of an error in the plea-taking process is relevant. 
10 

majority opinion requires trial courts to use when a defendant alleges his plea was 

involuntary solely because it was part of a joint plea is substantially the same test as is

already used in MCR 6.302. Thus, the majority opinion—whether read as a special 

category of error or an exception to a defendant’s general duty to show an error in the pleataking process—effectively requires a trial court to repeat its analysis whenever a 

defendant moves to withdraw a joint plea. 

Besides not addressing the requirements of MCR 6.310, the majority opinion also 

adopts a test used by the California Supreme Court in a completely different procedural 

situation. In Ibarra, the defendant alleged that “his plea bargain was per se invalid because 

a ‘package-deal’ arrangement is inherently coercive.”9 The California Supreme Court held 

that “when a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a ‘package-deal’ arrangement, the trial 

court has a duty to conduct further inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea: although such 

a bargain is not per se coercive, it may be so under a totality of the circumstances.”10 The 

California Supreme Court stated that “[v]arious factors must be considered at the inquiry,” 

including: 

First, the court must determine whether the inducement for the plea is proper. 

The court should be satisfied that the prosecution has not misrepresented 

facts to the defendant, and that the substance of the inducement is within the 

proper scope of the prosecutor’s business. The prosecutor must also have a 

reasonable and good faith case against the third parties to whom leniency is 

promised. . . . 

Second, the factual basis for the guilty plea must be considered. If the 

guilty plea is not supported by the evidence, it is less likely that the plea was 

9 In re Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d at 281. 

10 Id. at 281-282. 
11 

the product of the accused’s free will. The same would be true if the 

“bargained-for” sentence were disproportionate to the accused’s culpability. 

Third, the nature and degree of coerciveness should be carefully 

examined. Psychological pressures sufficient to indicate an involuntary plea 

might be present if the third party promised leniency is a close friend or 

family member whom the defendant feels compelled to help. . . . 

Fourth, a plea is not coerced if the promise of leniency to a third party 

was an insignificant consideration by a defendant in his choice to plead 

guilty. For example, if the motivating factor to plead guilty was the 

realization of the likelihood of conviction at trial, the defendant cannot be 

said to have been “forced” into pleading guilty, unless the coercive factors 

present had nevertheless remained a substantial factor in his decision. 

Our list is by no means exhaustive. Other factors which may be 

relevant can and should be taken into account at the inquiry. For example, 

the age of the defendant, whether defendant or the prosecutor had initiated 

the plea negotiations, and whether charges have already been pressed against 

a third party might be important considerations.[11] 

Ibarra establishes that California trial courts must consider the above-listed factors before

accepting a joint plea made by codefendants. Ibarra says nothing about how a trial court 

should resolve a motion to withdraw a guilty plea made under the same circumstances. 

No other court has applied Ibarra to a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. The 

majority opinion cites State v Solano12 and State v Tietjens13 to show that the Arizona 

Supreme Court applies Ibarra to motions to withdraw a plea. But in Solano, the Arizona 

Supreme Court held that “whenever a plea is taken pursuant to a ‘package deal’ the trial 

court is required to conduct a careful inquiry into the totality of the circumstances 

11 Id. at 288-290 (citations omitted). 

12 State v Solano, 150 Ariz 398; 724 P2d 17 (1986) (en banc). 

13 State v Tietjens, 151 Ariz 560; 729 P2d 914 (1986) (en banc). 
12 

surrounding the plea.”14 Likewise, in Tietjens, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded: “In 

the period since defendant filed this appeal, we upheld the legality of package-deal plea 

agreements in State v Solano, . . . as long as the trial court carefully inquires into the totality 

of circumstances in examining the voluntariness of the plea.”15 Thus, Arizona, like 

California, only applies the Ibarra totality-of-the-circumstances analysis during the pleataking process and not when considering a motion to withdraw a plea. 

The majority opinion also cites Minnesota’s Supreme Court to support its 

application of Ibarra to a motion to withdraw a plea. But in State v Danh,

16 the Minnesota 

Supreme Court held: 

[T]he state must fully inform the trial court of the details of these agreements 

at the time a defendant enters a ‘package deal’ plea, and the trial court must 

then conduct further inquiries to determine whether the plea is voluntarily 

made. In future cases, a defendant must be allowed to withdraw his or her 

guilty plea . . . if the trial court fails to adequately inquire into the 

voluntariness of the plea at the time of the guilty plea. This holding is in 

accordance with those cases which hold that trial courts must take extra steps 

to determine the voluntariness of these types of pleas.[17] 

And in Butala v State,

18 the Minnesota Supreme Court merely reaffirmed their holding in 

Danh. Thus, Minnesota holds that Ibarra’s test applies only to the plea-taking process, not 

to a motion to withdraw a plea. Likewise, neither Washington nor Massachusetts have 

14 Solano, 150 Ariz at 402 (emphasis added), citing In re Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d at 288. 

15 Tietjens, 151 Ariz at 562, citing In re Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d at 288. 

16 State v Danh, 516 NW2d 539 (Minn, 1994). 

17 Id. at 542-543 (emphasis added), citing In re Ibarra, 34 Cal 3d at 288. 

18 Butala v State, 664 NW2d 333, 339-340 (Minn, 2003). 
13 

applied Ibarra to a motion to withdraw a plea. In State v Williams,

19 the Washington Court 

of Appeals held: 

A plea is not invalid if entered pursuant to a plea agreement that includes 

leniency for a third party . . . . 

 . . . [But] the court must specifically inquire about whether the 

codefendant pressured the defendant to go along with the plea and carefully 

question the defendant to ensure he is acting of his own free will.[20]

The Washington Court of Appeals plainly intended for this inquiry to be conducted at the 

plea-taking process and not during a hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea. And in 

Commonwealth v DiBenedetto,

21 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts simply held 

that “courts in other jurisdictions have required that, for a package deal to be enforced, the 

parties must notify the court that a package deal exists, and the court must inquire into the 

voluntariness of the package agreement with special care.”22 The Supreme Judicial Court 

of Massachusetts concluded that “courts in Massachusetts should adopt a similar 

approach.”23

In sum, the majority opinion does not identify a single other state that has applied 

Ibarra to a motion to withdraw a plea. And the majority opinion’s position that Ibarra has 

been “adopted by other state courts” in the same way this Court now adopts and applies 

Ibarra is wrong. 

19 State v Williams, 117 Wash App 390; 71 P3d 686 (2003). 

20 Id. at 400. 

21 Commonwealth v DiBenedetto, 491 Mass 390; 203 NE3d 579 (2023). 

22 Id. at 406 (cleaned up).

23 Id. 
14 

In addition to applying inapposite law in a novel way, this Court’s decision to adopt 

Ibarra in this case’s context also ignores the unanimous wisdom of the federal courts. The 

Court of Appeals correctly noted that Michigan courts have not adopted a test to determine 

when a joint plea bargain offered to relatives or any other third party is involuntary and 

may be withdrawn.24 It then noted, however, that federal courts “have addressed this issue 

in great detail.”25 First, the Court of Appeals noted that federal courts do not treat offers 

of leniency to relatives or third parties as particularly problematic.26 Second, the Court of 

Appeals quoted from United States v Seng Chen Yong,

27 in which the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “ ‘a defendant may successfully challenge the 

voluntariness of his plea by showing that probable cause to prosecute the third party did 

not exist at the time the defendant pleaded guilty . . . .’ ”28 In Seng Chen Yong, the Ninth 

Circuit noted that “[e]very federal court of appeal to consider the issue . . . has held that 

plea agreements that condition leniency for third parties on the defendant’s guilty plea are 

permissible so long as the Government acted in ‘good faith,’ meaning that it had probable 

cause to prosecute the third party.”29 The federal approach to motions to withdraw a plea 

24 See Samuels, 339 Mich App at 675. 

25 Id. 

26 See id. at 675-676. 

27 United States v Seng Chen Yong, 926 F3d 582 (CA 9, 2019). In Seng Chen Yong, the 

defendant argued that his plea was coerced because it included an offer to drop felony 

charges against his son. Id. at 585. 

28 Samuels, 339 Mich App at 678, quoting Sen Chen Yong, 926 F3d at 592. 

29 Sen Chen Yong, 926 F3d at 591, citing United States v McElhaney, 469 F3d 382, 385 

(CA 5, 2006); United States v Vest, 125 F3d 676, 680 (CA 8, 1997); United States v Wright, 
15

based solely on the fact that the plea was made pursuant to a joint plea deal offered to 

codefendants is simple: a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea on the grounds that it is 

involuntary because it was a joint plea if he or she establishes that the government did not 

have probable cause to prosecute the codefendant. Thus, the federal courts rely almost 

entirely on the plea-taking process to ensure that a joint plea is voluntary.30 

Like the federal courts, our current rules sufficiently protect a defendant’s 

constitutional rights by ensuring that the plea is voluntary. Thus, when a trial court reviews 

a motion to withdraw a guilty plea that is based solely on the fact that the plea was a joint 

plea offered to relatives, all that it must do is confirm that there was probable cause to 

prosecute the codefendants.

31 If there was probable cause to prosecute each defendant, the 

43 F3d 491, 499 (CA 10, 1994); United States v Pollard, 295 US App DC 7, 17-18; 959 

F2d 1011 (1992); United States v Marquez, 909 F2d 738, 742 (CA 2, 1990); Martin v 

Kemp, 760 F2d 1244, 1248 (CA 11, 1985); Harman v Mohn, 683 F2d 834, 837 (CA 4,

1982); United States v Nuckols, 606 F2d 566, 569-570 (CA 5, 1979); Politte v United 

States, 852 F2d 924, 929 (CA 7, 1988).

30 To be clear, defendants in federal court may raise a host of other collateral attacks on the 

plea-taking process; in Seng Chen Yong, the Ninth Circuit merely recognized that when a

defendant moves to withdraw his guilty plea solely because it was a joint plea, the trial

court need not conduct an entirely new plea colloquy because a simple finding of probable

cause to prosecute the codefendant is sufficient to establish that the prosecution was valid,

and the unchallenged plea bargain—conducted in line with established rules—was proper.

31 The federal courts recognize that an offer of leniency to a relative is more likely to coerce 

a defendant into pleading guilty. But while the federal courts recognize a difference 

between related codefendants and unrelated codefendants, the test applied to each is the 

same. In this case, this Court ordered briefing solely on whether an offer of leniency to a 

relative requires special protections because that was the issue appealed by defendant. The

parties’ briefing dutifully focused on the importance of family, with defendant’s 

supplemental and reply briefs using the words “family,” “relative,” and “brother” a 

combined 142 times and the government’s brief using those words 61 times. I would 

therefore limit this opinion to answering what standard a trial court must apply to a motion 

to withdraw a guilty plea premised solely on the fact that the plea was a joint plea offered 
16

voluntariness inquiry made before accepting the plea is sufficient to ensure that the plea 

was voluntary.32

Adopting the federal approach to motions like the one in this case is sound and 

firmly rooted in our criminal law jurisprudence for two reasons. First, it emphasizes the 

adequacy and importance of MCR 6.302 and MCR 6.310. Trial courts know that they must

conduct a full plea colloquy as described in MCR 6.302 and that a defendant must be 

permitted to withdraw his guilty plea under MCR 6.310 if there is any error in the trial 

court’s application of MCR 6.302. By creating a new route to withdraw a plea on a late 

claim of involuntariness even though the trial court did not err in its application of MCR 

6.302, the majority opinion undermines MCR 6.302 and MCR 6.310. In fact, the majority 

opinion summarily creates a special procedural tool that is only available to defendants 

who pleaded guilty pursuant to a package-deal plea without explaining why MCR 6.302 

and MCR 6.310 are inadequate procedural safeguards. 

Second, the federal standard streamlines the work of trial courts and prosecutors’

offices, thereby providing defendants with predictability and the opportunity to plead to 

avoid the possibility of a conviction after trial and imposition of a more severe sentence. 

to relatives. I would leave for another day whether the same standard is applicable to 

nonrelative codefendants.

32 Simply put, if a defendant alleges an error in the plea-taking process, then the trial court 

must determine whether an error was made in that process as required by MCR 6.310. But 

when a defendant does not allege an error in the plea-taking process—as is the situation 

here—a trial court does not have to review the plea-taking process or conduct a second 

voluntariness hearing. In such a case as this one, all the trial court need do is confirm that 

there was probable cause to prosecute the codefendants who were included in the joint plea 

deal; i.e., that the prosecution is not de jure invalid.
17

By complicating the validity of joint plea deals, the majority opinion makes it more likely 

that prosecutors’ offices will not offer plea bargains to any codefendant, forcing all 

codefendants to risk worse outcomes, like convictions of a greater offense at trial and 

longer sentences. 

The majority opinion’s approach compels trial courts deciding motions like the one 

in this case to conduct a nearly identical voluntariness analysis to the one it conducted 

under MCR 6.302. The process adopted in the majority opinion will thus burden trial 

courts, whose workload will unnecessarily increase. It will also burden prosecutors’ 

offices whose work to finalize a plea bargain acceptable to the government and the 

defendant may be undone—after the plea colloquy designed to determine whether the plea

is voluntary has occurred—merely because a defendant makes a bare allegation that one 

aspect of the plea bargain caused the defendant to plead involuntarily.

33 Last, the majority 

opinion will harm defendants. By making joint plea bargains more arduous to complete, 

more vulnerable to attack, and less certain, the majority opinion makes it less likely that 

prosecutors will offer plea bargains to codefendants. 

33 The majority attempts to make its holding appear narrower by holding that an evidentiary 

hearing is required only if “the record raises a question of fact as to whether the defendant’s 

plea was induced by a promise of leniency to a third party.” But when a defendant alleges 

that his joint plea was coercive, it is hard to see how this would ever not be sufficient to 

establish a question of fact under the majority’s exceedingly low threshold. If something 

more is required, the majority never explains what it is.

By the same token, it is unclear what the majority expects to happen at the 

evidentiary hearing it now requires. In most cases, the defendant will be the only individual 

who can give testimony relevant to the Ibarra factors. It is therefore unclear what the trial 

court should weigh against the defendant’s testimony.
18

Defendants like the one in this case may find themselves forced to go to trial and 

risk convictions of greater offenses and longer prison sentences because prosecutors’ 

offices are unwilling to spend time crafting and negotiating a joint plea bargain that is far 

more likely to fail. I seriously doubt that this is the majority’s intention.

II. CONCLUSION

In this case, we consider what procedure a trial court must apply when resolving a 

motion to withdraw a plea that is allegedly involuntary solely because it was part of a joint 

plea deal offered to relatives. The majority opinion ignores the combined wisdom of every 

federal court and adopts a test used by the California Supreme Court in different 

circumstances. Indeed, the majority opinion makes Michigan the first jurisdiction in the 

nation to require trial courts to conduct a second plea colloquy whenever a defendant who 

pleaded guilty in a joint plea alleges that his plea was involuntary merely because it was a 

part of a joint plea deal. I dissent from the majority opinion because I agree with the 

wisdom of the federal courts and our sister states that the existing plea-taking framework 

is sufficient, and I would not adopt and expand the California test to motions to withdraw 

pleas. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, I dissent. 

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano