Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

Order 

November 19, 2014

145433

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145433

COA: 307480

Wayne CC: 01-003031-01

JUAN WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of April 29, 2013, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Burt v Titlow, 

cert gtd 571 US ___; 133 S Ct 1457; 185 L Ed 2d 360 (2013). On order of the Court, the 

case having been decided on November 5, 2013, 571 US ___; 134 S Ct 10; 187 L Ed 2d 

348 (2013), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu 

of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for an 

evidentiary hearing, pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), as to the 

defendant’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of 

the prosecutor’s September 26, 2001 offer of a plea bargain to second-degree murder and 

a sentence agreement of 25 to 50 years. See Missouri v Frye, 566 US ___; 132 S Ct 

1399; 182 L Ed 2d 379 (2012). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

a defendant must show: (1) that his attorney’s performance was objectively unreasonable 

in light of prevailing professional norms; and (2) that he was prejudiced by the deficient 

performance. People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590, 599-600 (2001). In order to establish the 

prejudice prong of the inquiry under these circumstances, the defendant must show that: 

(1) he would have accepted the plea offer; (2) the prosecution would not have withdrawn 

the plea offer in light of intervening circumstances; (3) the trial court would have 

accepted the defendant’s plea under the terms of the bargain; and (4) the defendant’s 

conviction or sentence under the terms of the plea would have been less severe than the 

conviction or sentence that was actually imposed. Lafler v Cooper, 566 US ___; 132 S 

Ct 1376, 1385; 182 L Ed 2d 398 (2012).
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 19, 2014

s1112

2

Clerk

If the defendant establishes that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to 

convey the plea bargain as outlined above, the defendant shall be given the opportunity to 

establish his entitlement to relief pursuant to MCR 6.508(D). If the defendant 

successfully establishes his entitlement to relief pursuant to MCR 6.508(D), the trial court 

must determine whether the remedy articulated in Lafler v Cooper should be applied 

retroactively to this case, in which the defendant’s conviction became final in October 

2005. If available, Judge Thomas Edward Jackson shall preside over the hearing.

The circuit court shall, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, 

determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, appoint counsel to represent the 

defendant in this matter. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we 

are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this 

Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.