-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION August 18, 2015 9:05 a.m.

v No. 320209 Wayne Circuit Court SALAH AL-SHARA, LC No. 13-008152-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: H OEKSTRA , P.J., and S AWYER and B ORRELLO , JJ.

H OEKSTRA , P.J.

The prosecution appeals by leave granted a circuit court order vacating defendant’s nolo contendere plea. Because the district court failed to advise defendant o f his Jaworski 1 rights during the plea proceedings as required by MCR 6.610(E)(4) and the trial court thus abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to set aside defendant ’s plea, we affirm.

As a result of an incident with his wife at a restaurant on Ma y 27, 2013, defendant was charged with one count of domestic violence under MCL 750.81(2) . The prosecution offered defendant a plea agreement, which he accepted. Pursuant to thi s agreement, defendant would plead no contest to one count of domestic violence in exchange for a sentence consisting of one year of probation with credit for two months of probation alrea dy served and no jail time. It is uncontested that, on May 31, 2013, defendant signed a written “ pre-trial conference summary” form detailing the terms of the plea agreement. 2 This form, signed by defendant, also included the following waiver of de fendant’s trial rights:

I HEREBY ACCEPT THE ABOVE AGREEMENT AND WAIVE THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS:

1 People v Jaworski , 387 Mich 21; 194 NW2d 868 (1972).

2 Although we do not have the benef it of the district court file , this document appears as an attachment to a document submitte d by the prosecutor in circuit court. The parties do not contest that this document was signed by defendant.-2- 1. THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL OR TRIAL BY THE COURT.

2. THE RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

3. THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND QUESTION THE WITNESSES AGAINST ME.

4. THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE COURT COMPEL WITNESSES TO COME TO COURT AND TESTIFY FOR ME.

5. THE RIGHT TO TESTIFY AT MY TRIAL. THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND NOT HAVE MY SILENCE USED AGAINST ME.

6. THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER, AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE COURT APPOINT A LA WYER TO REPRESENT ME IF I AM INDIGENT AND MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

On May 31, 2013, the district court held a hearing, during whi ch the parties indicated that they had come to a resolution in the case and that defendant wi shed to enter a no contest plea. After recounting the terms of t he agreement and confirming that defendant realized the plea would constitute a violation of a previous order of probation e ntered in another case, the district court concluded that there was factual support for defendant’s plea in the contents of an incident report dated May 27, 2013. In terms of advising defendant of t he rights he waived by entering a plea, the trial court then engage d in the following brief collo quy:
[ District Court ]: [Defendant,] are you giving up your Constitutional Rights to a trial by judge or jury in this case?

[ Defendant ]: Yes, Your Honor.

[ District Court ]: Is anybody forcing you into this in any way whatsoever, [defendant]?

[ Defendant ]: No, Your Honor.

[ District Court ]: Very well. The Court will accept the plea of no contest on 13S01020[;] we will enter a fi nding of a probation violation on 12S0273.

Once the district court accepted defendant’s plea, the district court immediately proceeded to sentencing and sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement reached by the parties.

On August 9, 2013, defendant filed a timely motion in the dist rict court to withdraw his plea. In relevant part, defenda nt asserted that he should be p ermitted to withdraw his plea because the trial court failed to advise defendant of his right s as required under MCR 6.610(E). According to defendant, this obvious error affected his substan tial rights and merited the setting aside of his plea.-3- The district court disagreed and denied defendant’s motion. T he district court reasoned that, based on a review of the proceedings as a whole, there wa s not a deviation from the court rule affecting defendant’s substa ntial rights that would consti tute a miscarriage of justice as required to set aside defendant’s plea after conviction and sen tencing under People v Ward , 459 Mich 602, 614; 594 NW2d 47 (1999), opinion corrected on denial of reh 460 Mich 1204 (1999). In reaching this conclusion, the district court characterized a ny deviation from the court rules as a mere “technical failure.” The d istrict court further reasone d that defendant was not harmed by this “technical failure” because defendant signed a written for m advising him of his rights, defendant was “not a stranger to c ourt proceedings,” defendant had failed to provide an affidavit attesting to the fact that defendant actually failed to underst and his rights and, in actuality, defendant’s real motivation in seeking to set aside the plea wa s simply to avoid the probation violation consequences arising in his other case. In these cir cumstances, the trial court concluded that defendant had not shown a miscarriage of justice arising from the plea proceedings and was thus not ent itled to have his plea set asid e.
After the district court denied defendant’s motion, defendant filed a claim of appeal in Wayne Circuit Court, again asserting that his plea should be se t aside because the district court failed to comply with MCR 6.610(E). The circuit court conclude d that, applying a substantial compliance standard, the plea taking process in this case was “ clearly defective” because defendant had not been advised of his rights on the record and the district court had failed to reference the form signed by defendant to confirm that it had b een read and understood by defendant as required by MCR 6.610(E)(4). Because the rights o mitted by the district court included defendant’s constitutional rights as set forth in Boykin 3 and Jaworski , the circuit court concluded that the plea was inva lid, this error could not be co rrected on remand, and that defendant was, therefore, enti tled to withdraw his plea. For t his reason, the circ uit court vacated defendant’s plea and remanded to t he district court for a trial . Following the circuit court’s decision, the prosecutor filed an application for leave to appe al in this Court, which we granted. 4

On appeal, the prosecutor argues that the circuit court erred by vacating defendant’s plea because the district court substantially complied with MCR 6.61 0(E) and defendant has not shown that any deviation from the court rule affected his subst antial rights. Instead, according to the prosecution, any errors committed by the district court wer e minor and the combination of written and oral waivers utilized during the proceedings served to adequately advise defendant of his rights. Because there is no indication that defendant fail ed to actually understand his rights, the prosecutor maintains that defendant has not shown error aff ecting his substantial rights or a miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the prosecutor asserts that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying d efendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.

A trial court’s ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is revie wed for an abuse of discretion. People v Brown , 492 Mich 684, 688; 822 NW2d 208 (2012). An abuse of discreti on

3 Boykin v Alabama , 395 US 238, 243; 89 S Ct 1709; 23 L Ed 2d 274 (1969).

4 People v Al-Shara , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 18, 2014 (Docket No. 320209).-4- occurs when the trial court’s de cision falls outside the range of principled outcomes. People v Fonville , 291 Mich App 363, 376; 804 NW2d 878 (2011). A trial court al so necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. People v Swain , 288 Mich App 609, 628-629; 794 NW2d 92 (2010). To the extent resolution of this case poses qu estions of constitutional law or requires interpretation of the c ourt rules our review is de nov o. People v Clement , 254 Mich App 387, 389-390; 657 NW2d 172 (2002).

“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). Nonetheless, whe n there has been a defect in the plea-taking process, a defendant may seek to set aside his or her plea. See Brown , 492 Mich at 693; People of City of Livonia v Jasik , 393 Mich 439, 442; 224 NW2d 838 (1975). Withdrawals of pleas ent ered in district court in part icular are governed by MCR 6.610(E)(8), which states:

(a) A defendant may not challe nge a plea on appeal unless the d efendant moved in the trial court to withdraw the plea for noncompliance with the se rules. Such a motion may be made either before or after sentence has been imp osed. After imposition of sentence, the defendant may file a motion to with draw the plea within the time for filing an application for leave to appeal u nder MCR 7.105[G](2).

(b) If the trial court determines that a deviation affecting su bstantial rights occurred, it shall correct the deviation and give the defendant the option of permitting the plea to stand or of withdrawing the plea. If the trial court determines either a deviation did not occur, or that the deviat ion did not affect substantial rights, it may permit the defendant to withdraw the plea only if it does not cause substantial prejudice to the people because of relian ce on the plea.

(c) If a deviation is corrected, any appeal will be on the whol e record including the subsequent advice and inquiries.

As this rule makes plain, a defendant may seek to withdraw his or her district court plea for noncompliance with the plea-taking requirements set forth in th e court rules, but to succeed on such a motion, a defendant must demonstrate that a deviation af fecting substantial rights occurred. See MCR 6.610(E)(8)(b). Given the requirements of t he court rule for setting aside a plea, the question before us in th is case is twofold: whether t he trial court deviated from the court rules governing the plea-taking process and, if so, whether thi s deviation entitles defendant to set aside his plea.

The process for accepting a plea in district court is set forth in MCR 6.610(E). Under this rule, before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the district court has an obligation to determine that the plea is “understanding, voluntary, and accur ate.” MCR 6.610(E)(1). See also Brown , 492 Mich at 693. To be voluntar y and understanding, a defend ant must be made aware of the rights he waives by entering a plea as well as the direc t consequences of a plea. See People v Cole , 491 Mich 325, 332-333; 817 NW2d 497 (2012). Only when a defe ndant is sufficiently made aware of his trial rights and the direct cons equences of a plea can a defendant-5- make a voluntary and intelligent choice between the alternative courses of action available. See id. , citing N Carolina v Alford , 400 US 25, 31; 91 S Ct 160; 27 L Ed 2d 162 (1970).

Of particular relevance to the present case, “[a] no-contest or a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of several constitutional rights, including the privileg e against compulsory selfincrimination, the right to a tr ial by jury, and the right to c onfront one's accusers.” 5 Cole , 491 Mich at 332. Because a defendant waives these rights by enteri ng a plea, “the defendant must be informed of these three rights, for without knowledge he cannot understandingly waive those rights.” Jaworski , 387 Mich at 29. While there are other rights of which a defe ndant must also be informed, these three rights, often referred to in Michigan as “the Jaworski rights,” were given preeminent importance in plea proceedings by the United S tates Supreme Court in Boykin
, 395 US at 243; and, in Jaworski , 387 Mich at 31, the Michigan S upreme Court later determined that a felony conviction entered pursuant to a plea must be set aside if the defendant was not advised of his rights to a jury trial, to confront his accusers , and to remain silent. As a matter of policy, these advice of rights requirements were imported into the district court context in 1988 via the court rules, such that a district court must, like a ci rcuit court, advise a defendant pleading to a misdemeanor of these Jaworski rights at the plea proceedings. See People v Yost , 433 Mich 133, 140; 445 NW2d 95 (1989).

In particular, among other rights and information, MCR 6.610(E )(3) specifically requires the district court to inform a defendant of the Jaworski rights he or she will waive by entering a plea. The rule states:

(3) The court shall advise the defendant of the following:

(a) the mandatory minimum jail sentence, if any, and the maximu m possible penalty for the offense,

(b) that if the plea is accepted the defendant will not have a trial of any kind and that the defendant gives up the following rights that the defen dant would have at trial:

5 These constitutional rights also exist in the context of misde meanor offenses. See, e.g., Berkemer v McCarty , 468 US 420, 433; 104 S Ct 3138; 82 L Ed 2d 317 (1984) (consti tutional prohibition on compelled self-incrimination, as safeguarded thr ough provision of Miranda warnings, applied to misdemeanors as well as felonies); D.C. v Clawans , 300 US 617, 630; 57 S Ct 660; 81 L Ed 843 (1937) (reversal required where the misdeme anor defendant was denied opportunity for cross-examination); People v Antkoviak , 242 Mich App 424, 480-482; 619 NW2d 18 (2000) (constitutional right to a jury trial for misdem eanor offenses in Michigan under Const. 1963, art. 1, § 20); Cons t. 1963, art. 1, § 20. See als o Pointer v Texas , 380 US 400, 405; 85 S Ct 1065; 13 L Ed 2d 923 (1965) (“There are few subjects, p erhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross- examination is an essential an d fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal. ”).-6- (i) the right to have witnesses called for the defendant's defe nse at trial,

(ii) the right to cross-examine a ll witnesses called against th e defendant,

(iii) the right to testify or to remain silent without an infer ence being drawn from said silence,

(iv) the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the defendant's guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [MCR 6.610(E)(3).]

Regarding the manner in which this information may be imparted , MCR 6.610(E)(4) directs that a defendant may be i nformed of these rights as fol lows:

(a) on the record,

(b) in a writing made part of the file, or

(c) in a writing referred to on the record.

If the court uses a writing pursu ant to subrule (E)(4)(b) or (c ), the court shall address the defendant and obtain from the defendant orally on t he record a statement that the rights were read and understood and a waiver of those rights. The waiver may be obtained withou t repeating the individual rig hts.

Given the plain language of MCR 6.610(E)(4), it is clear that a defendant may be advised of his rights either in writing or on th e record. Either manner is su fficient. However, whatever manner is used, the rule makes plain that there must be some on the re cord colloquy with a defendant regarding his rights to ensure that he has been advised of thos e rights. That is, even if a defendant is advised of his rights in writing, the rule mandate s that “ 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 .” MCR 6.610(E)(4) (emphasis added). The trial court need not necessarily reiterate each of defendant’s individual rights on the record, but it must, at a minimum, verify that defendant did in fact read and understand those rights. MCR 6.610(E)(4). In the absence of s uch a colloquy on the record, intelligent waiver of these important rights cannot be presumed. See Jaworski , 387 Mich at 29.

When considering whether a tria l court complied with the court rules governing plea proceedings and whether any deviation entitles a defendant to r eversal of his or her plea, we review the trial court’s observance of the court rules detailin g the procedures for taking a plea under the doctrine of “substantial compliance.” 6 People v Saffold , 465 Mich 268, 273; 631

6 When reviewing defendant’s motion to set aside its plea, the d istrict mistakenly relied on Ward
, 459 Mich at 611-614, wherein the C ourt did not apply the doctri ne of substantial compliance but instead emphasized that withdrawal of a guilty plea after convi ction and sentencing is disfavored and subject to a showing of a miscarriage of justice. Like the circuit court, we instead conclude that Safford , not Ward controls the instant dispute. That is, Ward was decided before the-7- NW2d 320 (2001). Under this doctrine, literal or “talismanic” compliance with the court rules is not required. See id. at 280; In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich 96, 124; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). Instead, reviewing courts consider the record to determine whet her “the judge informed the defendant of the constitutional and other rights delineated in the rule in such manner as reasonably to warrant the conclusion that the defendant underst ood what a trial is and that by pleading guilty he was knowingly giving up his right to a trial and the rights and incidents of a trial.” In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich at 124. When applying this standard, there must, however, be consideration of the preeminence given the Jaworski rights, and it remains the rule in Michigan that failure to advise a defendant of his Jaworski rights during the plea proceedings mandates automatic reversal and the setting aside of the plea. See Saffold , 465 Mich at 273, citing Jaworski , 387 Mich at 21; People v Plumaj , 284 Mich App 645, 650; 773 NW2d 763 (2009). Omission of a Jaworski right requires automatic reversal because a valid waiver of th ese important Jaworski rights cannot be presumed from a silent record, Jaworski , 387 Mich at 29, and this type of “ Jaworski defect cannot be corrected on a remand,” In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich at 121. Consequently, when considering the plea proceedin gs, “[t]o determine if there was substantial compliance with the c ourt rule, the first question is whether the right omitted or misstated is a ‘ Jaworski right.’” Saffold , 465 Mich at 273.

If a Jaworski right is omitted from the plea proceedings, then reversal is mandated. However, the omission from the plea proceedings of o ne or another of the rights attendant to a trial, other than a Jaworski right, or the imprecise recital of any such right, including a Jaworski right, does not necessarily require reversal. [ Saffold , 465 Mich at 273-274.] [7]

amendment of MCR 6.610 and MCR 7.103 to include time constraint s for challenging pleabased convictions in district court. See Ward , 459 Mich at 614-615. The f oundation of Ward ’s reasoning was that “long delayed direct appeals,” such as the a ppeal in that case brought more than twelve months after judgment, were to be “deemed collatera l.” Id. at 614. Collateral attacks on a plea-based conviction—of the type described in Ward —have long been disfavored because the procedural safeguards provided for in Boykin and Jaworski “must at some point be balanced with considerations of finality and administrative con sequences in order to best achieve proceedings that are consistent with rudimentary demands of fai r procedure.” People v Ingram
, 439 Mich 288, 298; 484 NW2d 241 (1992). Because the present ca se involves a timely motion to set aside a plea in accordance with the temporal restraints set forth in MCR 6.610(E)(8), the present case is not a collateral attack subject to review under Ward , and is instead properly considered under the principles of Safford

.
7 Although Safford and In re Guilty Plea Cases applied the doctrine of substantial compliance when analyzing the procedures for pleas to felony charges in ci rcuit courts, we think it appropriate to also apply this doctrine by analogy to the accep tance of misdemeanor pleas in district court under MCR 6.610. While MCR 6.610 is not identic al to its circuit court counterpart, MCR 6.302, the rules nonetheless share many common features and the same overarching aim to inform a defendant of the rights waived by e ntering a plea as well as the consequences of a plea. Hence, we are persuaded that, analogou s to a circuit court, a district court need not engage in the colloquy described in MCR 6.610 ve rbatim; but it must substantially comply with the rul e. And, as in the circuit court, whether reversal is required will-8- In this case, defendant’s Jaworski rights are clearly implicated. At the plea hearing, the district court appropriately ref erenced defendant’s right to a jury trial but wholly failed to inform defendant of his right to remain silent and his right to confro nt his accusers. See MCR 6.610(E)(3)(b). The district court also failed to make any ref erence to defendant’s execution of a written advice of rights or to ve rify that defendant actually r ead and understood the rights imparted on the form he signed. See MCR 6.610(E)(4). Moreover , these rights were not mentioned by anyone else on the record in the hearing of the di strict court and defendant. See Saffold , 465 Mich at 278-280; In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich at 114-115, 122. Given this total omission of two of the three Jaworski rights from the record of the plea proceedings, it follows that defendant is automatically entitled to set aside h is plea. See Saffold , 465 Mich at 273-274, 281; Jaworski , 387 Mich at 31.

In contrast to this conclusion, the prosecutor maintains that defendant’s uncontested signature on a written form advising him of these rights should be held to satisfy the “substantial compliance” standard with respect to MCR 6.610(E)(4) such that defendant should not be automatically entitled to set a side his plea. The obvious flaw with this “substantial compliance” argument is that it would in effect obviate the requirement tha t the court reference defendant’s Jaworski rights on the record in some manner—either by enumerating thos e rights on the record or by verifying that defendant read a written advice of rights— in order to make sure that those rights were in fact r ead and understood by de fendant. In other words, under MCR 6.610(E)(4), if a written form is used to inform a defendant of his or her righ ts, there are two mandatory requirements under the court rules: (1) a writing detailing the rights in question and (2) an oral colloquy regarding that writing on the record. When a court co mpletely abdicates its obligation to personally discuss the writi ng with a defendant on the recor d, and the rights contained in the writing are not otherwise imparte d to a defendant on the record during the plea proceedings, we fail to see how the district court can be said to have “substan tially complied” with MCR 6.610(E)(4). 8 In these circumstances, the is sue is not one of wording or ph raseology with respect

depend on the type of noncompliance, bearing in mind that omiss ion of Jaworski rights requires automatic reversal because such a defect is intrinsically harmf ul and cannot be corrected on remand. See generally In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich at 121; Plumaj , 284 Mich App at 649- 650. Where a Jaworski right is not implicated, whethe r a deviation occurred is judge d under the substantial compliance doctrin e and, under MCR 6.610(E)(8), a d efendant is only entitled to relief if the deviation affecte d his substantial rights.

8 Interestingly, historically, th is Court rejected even overt re ferences to a written advice of rights form on the record by the trial court as satisfying the require ment that a trial court personally address a defendant when apprisi ng him or her of rights waived by entering a plea. See, e.g., People v Napier , 69 Mich App 46, 46-48; 244 NW2d 359 (1976) and cases therein. Such procedures are undoubtedly permissible under today’s court rule s. See MCR 6.302(B)(5); MCR 6.610(E)(4). However, it is clear from the court rule language that the personal address requirement nonetheless remains, see MCR 6.610(E)(4), and that this express requirement is distinct from, and cannot be satis fied solely by, a written for m. Indeed, as we have observed
supra , to allow a writing to satisfy both requirements would obviate the plain language of the court rules by effectively eliminating all necessity of an in-c ourt reference to the written form during the plea proceedings.-9- to Jaworski rights to which substantial compliance applies, see, e.g., In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich at 124, but rather omission, insofar as, by failing to enumerate defendant’s rights or, in lieu of itemizing those rights, to reference the form executed by de fendant, the trial court wholly failed to apprise defendant of his Jaworski rights at the plea proceedings.

For similar reasons, in contra st to the prosecutor and the d istrict court, we cannot excuse the district court’s failure in this respect as merely an unimp ortant technical defect that does not entitle defendant to relief. The requirement that the court pe rsonally address the defendant on the record regarding the waiver of trial rights is not a meanin gless formality. Rather, the court’s obligation to assume the principal role of imparting the requir ed information is a central component of the plea taking process, and it serves a number of important purposes. See In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich at 114. It preserves the integrity the process by w hich pleas are offered and creates a clear record for appellate review, it pro vides the trial court with an opportunity to observe defendant’s demeanor and response to the imparted information thereby facilitating the trial court’s assessment of defendant’s unders tanding, and it serves to impress upon a defendant the gravity and import of his plea at “the sol emn moment of passage from presumed innocence to conviction.” Id. at 114, 120-122; Jaworski , 387 Mich at 31; Napier , 69 Mich App at 48-49. As more fully articulated by In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich at 114:

That a defendant may have been tried by a jury in another case or learned of his rights in an earlier pl ea-taking proceeding would no mor e negate his right to be informed of the right to and incidents of a trial at the tim e a plea of guilty is offered than would proof that he had seen Perry Mason on televi sion or read Erle Stanley Gardner.

Many defendants have been made aware at one time or another of the right to and incidents of a trial and the consequences of a plea of g uilty. Nevertheless, whatever the personal history of the accused and the quality of his representation, the appearance of justice and the integrity of the process by w hich pleas of guilty are offered and accepted require, in the solemn moment of passa ge from presumed innocence to conviction and potential imprisonment, th at the judge apprise every defendant of the rights he is waiving and consequ ences of his plea and make the other determina tions required by the rule.

In this solemn context, a written advice of rights on its own— signed by a defendant off the record, outside of the cour t’s presence, and unreferenced b y the court, or anyone else, during the plea hearing—cannot satisfy, substantially or otherwise, a trial court’s obligation under MCR 6.610(E)(4) to ensure that defendant’s plea is understandingly and voluntarily made with knowledge of his or her Jaworski rights. Thus, even when a written advice of rights form has been signed by a defendant, there cannot be a total omission of any reference during the in-court proceedings to either the enumerated rights in question or the form itself signed by defendant off the record. 9 See Saffold , 465 Mich at 280. Moreover, when the rights implicated by the se

9 We do not hold that literal compliance with MCR 6.610(E)(4) is required. That is, we do not suggest that there is a talismanic wording that is required in the in-court waiver colloquy with a-10- procedures include a defendant’s Jaworski rights, a defendant is automatically entitled to set aside his or her plea when reference to those rights, either th rough express enumeration of those rights or reference to the written document, is omitted from th e in-court plea proceedings. See Saffold , 465 Mich at 273-274, 281; Jaworski , 387 Mich at 31; People v Lee , 112 Mich App 194, 195-196; 315 NW2d 896 (1982).

Consequently, in this case, becau se the district court failed to substantially comply with the court rules and the deviation in question implicated defend ant’s Jaworski rights, defendant was automatically entitled to set aside his plea. The district court therefore abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to s et aside his plea. For this reason, we affirm the circuit court’s order reversing the district c ourt and remanding for a trial.

Affirmed.

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Stephen L. Borrello

defendant. See Saffold , 465 Mich at 280. Rather, the personal address requirement ca n be substantially complied with in a number of ways, provided that there is a discussion of a defendant’s rights—or discussion of the signed advice of rights form—at any pointduring the incourt proceedings, even by someone other than the trial court. See id. ; In re Guilty Plea Cases
, 395 Mich at 114, 124. For example, it might satisfy the court rule if, in the presence of the trial court and defendant, the prosecutor or defense attorney made re ference to the fact that defendant previously signed a form advising him of his rights. See In re Guilty Plea Cases , 395 Mich at 114.