Opinion ID: 831188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the effect of the habitual offender enhancement

Text: Defendant was charged with third-degree fleeing and eluding and driving with a suspended license, second offense. At his arraignment on July 31, 2007, he pled guilty to the charges. The trial court advised him that the maximum possible sentence for fleeing and eluding is five years in prison. On August 2, 2007, the prosecutor filed a timely supplemental information under MCL 769.10 and MCL 769.13(3) charging defendant as a third habitual offender. The court subsequently sentenced defendant to 30 months to 10 years in prison as a third habitual offender. Without the enhancement, defendant's guidelines range would have been 7 to 34 months in prison. Defendant sought withdrawal of his plea, vacation of his sentence, and resentencing. He claimed that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the judge had not informed him of the enhanced maximum sentence for his offense. The judge denied the motions. He ruled that he had informed defendant of the consequences of his plea and that defendant had said he pleaded guilty understandingly, voluntarily, and without being coerced or promised anything. The Court of Appeals granted defendant's application for leave to appeal and affirmed the convictions and sentences. [2] It ruled that defendant was not entitled to be informed of the enhanced maximum sentence under MCR 6.302(B). We granted oral argument on defendant's application for leave to appeal to this Court. [3] Defendant argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he had not been informed of the enhanced maximum sentence for the offense when he pled guilty. He relies on MCR 6.302(B). [4] He also argues that the Court of Appeals incorrectly decided Boatman four years ago.