Court Opinion

ID: 9409715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 13:05:39.776512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:52.714509
License: Public Domain

Michigan Supreme Court
                                                                                           Lansing, Michigan

Syllabus
                                                             Chief Justice:             Justices:
                                                              Elizabeth T. Clement      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              Reporter of Decisions:
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.                Kathryn L. Loomis

                                             PEOPLE v GUYTON

             Docket No. 163700. Argued on application for leave to appeal April 26, 2023. Decided
      July 18, 2023.

              Candace R. Guyton pleaded guilty in the Kent Circuit Court to one count of armed
      robbery, MCL 750.529. As part of the plea deal, the prosecution agreed not to pursue charges
      against defendant in an unrelated case and to recommend a sentence within the guidelines
      minimum range of 51 to 85 months in prison. The prosecutor also agreed to dismiss the
      supplemental information charging defendant as a third-offense habitual offender. However, the
      amended felony information wrongly classified defendant as a third-felony offender by counting
      a single prior conviction twice; in fact, defendant was eligible to be charged only as a second-
      offense habitual offender. The trial court, Mark A. Trusock, J., sentenced defendant at the top of
      the agreed-upon guidelines range to 84 months to 60 years in prison. Defendant later moved to
      withdraw her plea, arguing that it was involuntary and unknowing given that defendant was told
      she was avoiding a third-offense habitual-offender enhancement. The trial court denied the
      motion, agreeing with the prosecution that defendant had received benefit from the plea despite
      the error. The Court of Appeals (TUKEL, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and GADOLA, JJ.) affirmed the
      trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Defendant
      applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and the Court ordered and heard oral argument
      on the application. 509 Mich 920 (2022).

             In an opinion by Justice WELCH, joined by Justices BERNSTEIN, CAVANAGH, and BOLDEN,
      the Supreme Court held:

               The misinformation regarding defendant’s habitual-offender enhancement rendered
      defendant’s guilty plea involuntary and unknowing. Accordingly, the case had to be remanded
      to the trial court to give defendant the opportunity to elect to allow her plea to stand or withdraw
      her plea.

              1. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that a guilty or no-contest plea by a defendant be
      voluntary and knowing. These requirements are incorporated by MCR 6.302, which provides
      that a court may not accept a plea of guilty or no contest unless it is convinced that the plea is
      “understanding, voluntary, and accurate.” Courts must substantially comply with the
      requirements of MCR 6.302. Caselaw provides that automatic invalidation of a plea due to a
violation of MCR 6.302 is only required if the defendant establishes that the waiver was not
understandingly or voluntarily made. For a plea to be voluntarily and knowingly given, the
accused must be fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea. Further, under Brady v
United States, 397 US 742 (1970), the waiver of constitutional rights that are implicated in
accepting a plea must be a knowing and intelligent act done with “sufficient awareness of the
relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Thus, a trial court may, in certain
circumstances, be required to inform a defendant about facts not explicitly required by MCR
6.302 in order to comply with the due-process requirements that the plea be understanding,
voluntary, and accurate.

        2. In this case, the focal inquiry was not whether defendant received a benefit from the
plea deal, but whether she was adequately informed and aware of the relevant circumstances
surrounding the entering of the plea and the waiving of constitutional rights. Awareness of the
accurate habitual-offender enhancement is clearly a relevant circumstance. Similarly, a plea may
not be understanding and voluntary when a defendant is misinformed of the benefits of the plea.
Defendant’s waiver of her constitutional rights, through her guilty plea, was induced, in part, by
the prosecution’s and trial court’s assertions of an exaggerated benefit of the plea in lieu of
proceeding to trial. Defendant was led to believe that her guilty plea would result in the
dismissal of a third-offense habitual-offender enhancement—a likely consequence and relevant
circumstance of her plea—rather than a second-offense habitual-offender enhancement.
Specifically, defendant agreed to the plea deal believing that charges against her in a separate,
unrelated case would be dismissed and that the top end of her guidelines minimum sentence
range would be reduced by 42 months (from 127 months to 85 months). But the benefit she
received in relation to the dismissal of the habitual-offender enhancement, given that she was
only a second-offense habitual offender and not a third-offense habitual offender, was a
reduction of only 21 months from the top end of her minimum sentence range (from 106 months
to 85 months). Thus, the misinformation had a significant impact on what defendant believed
her minimum sentence could have been if she had proceeded to trial. The trial court made an
error of law and thus abused its discretion by not allowing defendant to withdraw her plea in
light of this misinformation. Because of the misinformation, defendant did not appreciate what
she was avoiding by pleading guilty, and therefore, her plea was not made understandingly or
voluntarily.

       3. When a prosecutor seeks an enhanced sentence, it is their responsibility to ensure that
the defendant receives notice and that such a sentence is legally permissible. It is not the
defendant’s obligation to remember the specific details of their criminal history in order to
ensure that the charging information is correct. The mere fact that a defendant may correct their
criminal record under MCL 769.13(4) does not absolve the prosecution of its responsibility to
provide accurate notice to the defendant. It is the burden of the prosecution to properly notify a
defendant of their habitual-offender status.

       Part III of the Court of Appeals opinion reversed, remainder of the Court of Appeals
opinion vacated, and case remanded to the trial court to give defendant the opportunity to elect to
allow her plea to stand or withdraw her plea.
        Justice ZAHRA, dissenting, joined by Chief Justice CLEMENT and Justice VIVIANO,
disagreed with the majority that defendant’s plea was not understanding and voluntary.
Defendant was fully informed of the penalties and direct consequences of her plea, and she
received precisely what she bargained for: a within-guidelines sentence, calculated without any
increase of the upper limit of the recommended minimum sentence range required for habitual
offenders. Justice ZAHRA would have held that a defendant’s misunderstanding as to one portion
of an overall favorable plea deal does not necessarily render the entire deal unknowing and
involuntary; rather, the trial court that entered the plea should assess the extent of the
misinformation or misunderstanding in the context of the entire plea to determine whether the
plea was understanding and voluntary and whether the defendant was indeed misled. In this
case, any misunderstanding as to defendant’s habitual-offender status did not render her plea
unknowing or involuntary, particularly in light of the substantial benefits she received from the
deal. Moreover, considering the plea in its entirety, defendant was sufficiently aware of the
overall benefits of the bargain such that she was able to voluntarily make an informed decision to
enter the plea with an adequate understanding of its consequences. While defendant may have
been misinformed as to the precise value of her plea deal, any misunderstanding as to her
habitual-offender status did not render her entire plea unknowing, involuntary, or inaccurate such
that the trial court was required to allow her the opportunity to withdraw it. Further, this case did
not involve a misunderstanding that required knowledge of substantive law or court procedure to
uncover. The number of previous felonies defendant had committed was part of her personal
criminal history; therefore, whether she could have been convicted as a second- or third-offense
habitual offender was something she should have known. Regardless, due process does not
require a per se rule that any misunderstanding in a plea agreement renders the plea unknowing
and involuntary. Especially given that trial courts may deny requests for plea withdrawal based
on substantive compliance with MCR 6.302, the extent of the misunderstanding should matter in
determining whether a plea was understanding, voluntary, and accurate and whether a defendant
was sufficiently aware of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of a plea.
                                                                          Michigan Supreme Court
                                                                                Lansing, Michigan

OPINION
                                                 Chief Justice:                Justices:
                                                  Elizabeth T. Clement         Brian K. Zahra
                                                                               David F. Viviano
                                                                               Richard H. Bernstein
                                                                               Megan K. Cavanagh
                                                                               Elizabeth M. Welch
                                                                               Kyra H. Bolden

                                                        FILED July 18, 2023

                            STATE OF MICHIGAN

                                     SUPREME COURT

  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

               Plaintiff-Appellee,

  v                                                               No. 163700

  CANDACE RENEE GUYTON,

               Defendant-Appellant.

 BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

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

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

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

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

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

 Defendant argues that her plea deal was flawed because she could only be validly charged
as a second-offense habitual offender.        We agree, and we hold that this erroneous

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

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

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

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

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

                                  I. BACKGROUND

                   A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

      Defendant and codefendant Kenneth Agnew were charged with attempted robbery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

officer and in jail phone calls with Agnew.

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

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

                                               2
unrelated case and to recommend a sentence within the guidelines minimum range of 51

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

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

However, critical to this appeal, defendant was not legally eligible to be charged as a third-

offense habitual offender at the time of the plea offer. Instead, she was only eligible to be

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

charging information incorrectly classified defendant as a third-felony offender by double-

counting a single prior conviction. Neither the prosecutor nor the trial court corrected this

error or informed defendant of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

possession was fake.

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

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

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

                                              3
because it did not rely on that information in sentencing defendant. The trial court did,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MCL 777.62.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

actually received, given that she was a second-offense habitual offender and not a third-

offense habitual offender, was a reduction of only 21 months from the top end of her

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

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

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

                                              4
held that, although there were errors in the plea-taking process, the trial court and

prosecution substantially complied with MCR 6.302.

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

and oral argument to address

       whether the appellant’s plea was not understanding, accurate and voluntary
       because the prosecutor misinformed her that by pleading guilty she would
       not be prosecuted as a third habitual offender when, in fact, she could only
       have been prosecuted as a second habitual offender. [People v Guyton, 509
       Mich 920, 920 (2022).]

                               B. LEGAL BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accepting plea agreements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                              5
held, “[a]utomatic invalidation of a plea due to a violation of MCR 6.302 is only required

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

747 (1970) (emphasis added).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

constitutional rights.

                                            6
       Awareness of the accurate habitual offender enhancement is clearly a relevant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aside[.]” MCR 6.310(C)(3).

                                             7
                                     II. ANALYSIS

                             A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

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

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

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

and citations omitted).

   B. DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT UNDERSTANDING OR VOLUNTARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ensuring an individual defendant actually understands the relevant circumstances and

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

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

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

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

                                             8
it is not explicitly required by MCR 6.302. Brown, 492 Mich at 693-694 & n 35, 701-702.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cannot be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the relevant circumstances.

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

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

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

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

                                             9
the plea on the basis of “an exaggerated belief in the benefits of his plea and that nothing

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

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

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

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

Lawson, 75 Mich App at 730.

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

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

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

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

habitual offender sentence enhancement—a likely consequence and relevant circumstance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                              10
of nearly two years between the potential minimum sentence defendant thought she was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enhancement. 1 Brady, 397 US at 748. 2 It is also notable that defendant’s lack of sufficient

1
 The inaccurate third-offense habitual offender notice filed in this case appears to have
been an unintentional mistake. The record contains no information to the contrary.
Nonetheless, that has no bearing on our analysis.
2
  Notably, we do not hold that defendant’s plea was illusory. Recently, we stated: “A
defendant may be entitled to withdraw a guilty plea if the bargain on which the plea was
based was illusory, meaning that the defendant received no benefit from the agreement.”
People v Stovall, 510 Mich 301, 311; 987 NW2d 85 (2022) (quotation marks omitted;
emphasis added), quoting People v Harris, 224 Mich App 130, 132; 568 NW2d 149 (1997).
Defendant here bargained to avoid a habitual offender enhancement and another armed
robbery charge. Therefore, she did receive some benefit from her plea, even though the
benefit was exaggerated.

                                             11
awareness was shared by the prosecution and trial court in this case, neither of which

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

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

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

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

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

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

plea was not understandingly or voluntarily made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

minor error will invalidate otherwise valid pleas.

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

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

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

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

                                            12
that the defendant receives notice and that such a sentence is legally permissible. See MCL

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

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

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

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

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

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

the specific details of their prior record. 3 The mere fact that a defendant may correct their

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with accurate information from the onset.

3
  For example, if a defendant engaged in armed robbery, they could plead to multiple
crimes that all arose out of that one robbery. While a defendant may understand that they
pleaded to the crime, they may not remember how many felonies or misdemeanors arose
out of a single plea proceeding.

                                             13
                                   III. CONCLUSION

       The misinformation regarding defendant’s habitual offender enhancement and the

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

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

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

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

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

       We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                         Elizabeth M. Welch
                                                         Richard H. Bernstein
                                                         Megan K. Cavanagh
                                                         Kyra H. Bolden

                                             14
                             STATE OF MICHIGAN

                                      SUPREME COURT

    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

                Plaintiff-Appellee,

    v                                                         No. 163700

    CANDACE RENEE GUYTON,

                Defendant-Appellant.

ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).
        I respectfully dissent. Defendant pleaded guilty to armed robbery pursuant to a plea

agreement. 1 In exchange for defendant’s guilty plea, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss a

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

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

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

Defendant was subsequently sentenced within the agreed-upon guidelines minimum

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

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

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

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

1
    MCL 750.529.
2
  Defendant was only eligible to be charged as a second-offense habitual offender at the
time of the plea offer. The amended charging information incorrectly classified defendant
as a third-felony offender by double-counting a single prior conviction.
motion, finding that defendant’s guilty plea was understanding, voluntary, and knowing

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

the trial court on this issue. 3 The majority now reverses this portion of the Court of

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

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

record rendered defendant’s plea involuntary and unknowing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

substantial benefits that defendant undisputedly received by entering into the plea

agreement. 4 Considering defendant’s plea deal in its entirety, defendant was sufficiently

3
  People v Guyton, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
September 2, 2021 (Docket No. 354221).
4
 Additionally, the fact that information about defendant’s prior convictions was known or
should have been known to her works substantially against her claim of appeal.

                                              2
aware of the overall benefits of the bargain such that she was able to voluntarily make an

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

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

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

of Appeals.

                                I. LEGAL BACKGROUND

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

it.” 6 A request to withdraw a plea after sentencing is controlled by MCR 6.310(C), which

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

provides:

               If the trial court determines that there was an error in the plea
        proceeding that would entitle the defendant to have the plea set aside, the
        court must give the advice or make the inquiries necessary to rectify the error
        and then give the defendant the opportunity to elect to allow the plea and
        sentence to stand or to withdraw the plea. If the defendant elects to allow the
        plea and sentence to stand, the additional advice given and inquiries made
        become part of the plea proceeding for the purposes of further proceedings,
        including appeals.

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

follows:

              (A) Plea Requirements. The court may not accept a plea of guilty or
        nolo contendere unless it is convinced that the plea is understanding,

5
  See Brady v United States, 397 US 742, 748; 90 S Ct 1463; 25 L Ed 2d 747 (1970)
(holding that, in order to constitute a valid plea, the plea must be a voluntary and a
“knowing, intelligent act[] done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances
and likely consequences”).
6
    People v Patmore, 264 Mich App 139, 149; 693 NW2d 385 (2004).

                                               3
voluntary, and accurate. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere,
the court must place the defendant or defendants under oath and personally
carry out subrules (B)-(E).

       (B) An Understanding Plea. Speaking directly to the defendant or
defendants, the court must advise the defendant or defendants of the
following and determine that each defendant understands:

       (1) the name of the offense to which the defendant is pleading; the
court is not obliged to explain the elements of the offense, or possible
defenses;

     (2) the maximum possible prison sentence for the offense and any
mandatory minimum sentence required by law . . . ;

       (3) if the plea is accepted, the defendant will not have a trial of any
kind, and so gives up the rights the defendant would have at a trial . . . [;]

                                   * * *

        (4) if the plea is accepted, the defendant will be giving up any claim
that the plea was the result of promises or threats that were not disclosed to
the court at the plea proceeding, or that it was not the defendant’s own choice
to enter the plea[.]

                                   * * *

       (C) A Voluntary Plea.

       (1) The court must ask the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer
whether they have made a plea agreement. If they have made a plea
agreement, which may include an agreement to a sentence to a specific term
or within a specific range, the agreement must be stated on the record or
reduced to writing and signed by the parties. The parties may memorialize
their agreement on a form substantially approved by the [State Court
Administrative Office]. The written agreement shall be made part of the case
file.

       (2) If there is a plea agreement, the court must ask the prosecutor or
the defendant’s lawyer what the terms of the agreement are and confirm the
terms of the agreement with the other lawyer and the defendant.

                                   * * *

                                      4
                (4) The court must ask the defendant:

               (a) (if there is no plea agreement) whether anyone has promised the
         defendant anything, or (if there is a plea agreement) whether anyone has
         promised anything beyond what is in the plea agreement;

                (b) whether anyone has threatened the defendant; and

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

                (D) An Accurate Plea.

                (1) If the defendant pleads guilty, the court, by questioning the
         defendant, must establish support for a finding that the defendant is guilty of
         the offense charged or the offense to which the defendant is pleading.

                                            * * *

                (E) Additional Inquiries. On completing the colloquy with the
         defendant, the court must ask the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer
         whether either is aware of any promises, threats, or inducements other than
         those already disclosed on the record, and whether the court has complied
         with subrules (B)-(D). If it appears to the court that it has failed to comply
         with subrules (B)-(D), the court may not accept the defendant’s plea until the
         deficiency is corrected.

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

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

compliance with MCR 6.302 is not required. 8 Rather, this Court has “adopted a doctrine

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

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

depend on the nature of the noncompliance.’ ” 9 “Automatic invalidation of a plea due to a

7
    People v Cole, 491 Mich 325, 332; 817 NW2d 497 (2012).
8
    People v Brinkey, 327 Mich App 94, 98; 932 NW2d 232 (2019).
9
 People v Saffold, 465 Mich 268, 273; 631 NW2d 320 (2001) (brackets omitted), quoting
Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 113; 235 NW2d 132 (1975).

                                               5
violation of MCR 6.302 is only required if the defendant establishes ‘that the waiver was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                       II. ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

10
     Brinkey, 327 Mich App at 98 (citation omitted).
11
  People v Pointer-Bey, 321 Mich App 609, 616; 909 NW2d 523 (2017) (quotation marks
and citation omitted).
12
     Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
13
     Id., quoting People v Brown, 492 Mich 684, 689; 822 NW2d 208 (2012).
14
   People v Blanton, 317 Mich App 107, 119; 894 NW2d 613 (2016) (quotation marks and
citation omitted).

                                               6
voluntary, and accurate. 15 Nonetheless, I disagree with the conclusion expressed in the

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

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

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

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

the opportunity to withdraw it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15
  See Cole, 491 Mich at 332 (“While we agree that MCR 6.302(B) through (E) constitute
explicit requirements imposed on a trial court conducting a plea hearing, the broader
directive of MCR 6.302(A) that the plea must be ‘understanding, voluntary, and accurate’
might, in a given proceeding, encompass more than the explicit requirements of the
remainder of the court rule. Specifically, the ‘understanding, voluntary, and accurate’
components of subrule (A) are premised on the requirements of constitutional due process,
which might not be entirely satisfied by compliance with subrules (B) through (D).”).

                                            7
is not a case in which a defendant pleaded guilty expecting one sentence and received a

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

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

the terms of her plea bargain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                              8
the statutory subsections allowing the prosecution to file a notice that it is seeking to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

been known to her and which, under the statute, she had the ability to correct. 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

16
     See MCL 769.13(1) and (2).
17
     See MCL 769.13(4).
18
   See United States v Spencer, 836 F2d 236, 239 (CA 6, 1987) (“[W]here a defendant is
aware of the condition or reason for a plea withdrawal, at the time the guilty plea is entered,
a case for withdrawal is weaker.”).

       Under the Court’s holding, it certainly is not hard to imagine that a defendant might
notice an error in a proffered plea bargain but decline to immediately bring that error to the
court’s attention in the hope that he or she can use that error to later attempt to withdraw
the plea, long after witnesses have moved and memories have faded. The majority’s
holding might therefore incentivize defendants to harbor errors such as this one to use as
an appellate parachute.

                                              9
its entirety. As noted earlier, trial courts have the ability to deny requests for plea

withdrawal based on substantial compliance with MCR 6.302 19—which is explicitly

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

misunderstanding should matter in determining whether a plea was understanding,

voluntary, and accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19
     See Brinkey, 327 Mich App at 98.
20
     Brady v United States, 397 US at 748 (emphasis added).
21
     Id. at 749.
22
     Santobello v New York, 404 US 257, 261-262; 92 S Ct 495; 30 L Ed 2d 427 (1971).
23
     Brady, 397 US at 748.

                                             10
“essence” of the prosecution’s promise similarly implies that there is room for some

misunderstanding as to the benefits of a plea deal.

           On this point, I find instructive Hammond v United States. 24 There, defense counsel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24
     Hammond v United States, 528 F2d 15 (CA 4, 1975).
25
     Id. at 16-17.
26
     Id. at 16.
27
     Id. at 18.
28
     Id.
29
     Id. at 19.

                                                11
Appeals has applied it outside that context when addressing an argument that a plea was

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

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

whether a defendant’s plea was voluntary and understanding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30
     See People v Lawson, 75 Mich App 726; 255 NW2d 748 (1977).
31
     Emphasis added.
32
  Emphasis added. In reaching its holding, the majority relies on Brown and Lawson. I
believe that both cases are distinguishable.

       In Brown, the defendant pleaded guilty as a second-offense habitual offender to
second-degree home invasion in exchange for dismissal of other charges. Brown, 492 Mich
at 687-688. The defendant was informed that the maximum sentence for his second-degree
home-invasion charge was up to 15 years in prison. Id. at 688. But because of the habitual-
offender enhancement, he was ultimately sentenced to a prison term of 6 years and 3

                                            12
majority opinion, any misinformation provided to a defendant, no matter how de minimis,

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

months to 22 years and 6 months, a significantly higher potential maximum sentence than
the 15-year sentence he was told was the maximum sentence. Id. This Court agreed with
the defendant that he should be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea, concluding that
“before pleading guilty, a defendant must be notified of the maximum possible prison
sentence with habitual-offender enhancement because the enhanced maximum becomes
the ‘maximum possible prison sentence’ for the principal offense.” Brown, 492 Mich at
693-694.

         Unlike Brown, this is not a case in which the trial court completely failed to inform
defendant that her otherwise applicable maximum possible sentence would necessarily be
enhanced by her habitual-offender status. Instead, defendant was informed of the exact
guidelines range that she would receive, without any habitual-offender enhancement, and
that is indeed the sentence she received. Defendant was not led to believe that her potential
sentence would be one term, when in actuality it would be much greater with the habitual
enhancement. Defendant received the exact sentencing range that she bargained for; that
range simply did not provide quite the benefit that she thought it did. Nothing in Brown
stands for the proposition that this type of misunderstanding requires that a defendant be
given the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea.

       Nor is Lawson dispositive. The Court of Appeals in Lawson actually quoted
Hammond’s standard that “ ‘[w]here . . . counsel’s alleged advice, corroborated by the
information supplied by the court, grossly exaggerated the benefit to be derived from the
pleas of guilty, it would follow that the pleas were not voluntary.’ ” Lawson, 75 Mich App
at 730 (emphasis added), quoting Hammond, 528 F2d at 19. In concluding that the
defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty because the prosecutor had
promised not to request consecutive sentences, but the possibility of consecutive terms for
the crimes committed did not exist, the Court of Appeals in Lawson did not at all suggest
that any misunderstanding in the plea process requires the opportunity for withdrawal.
Indeed, its quotation of the Hammond “grossly exaggerated” standard suggests the
opposite. And in Lawson, the prosecutor’s promise to forgo consecutive sentences
constituted a key part of the plea agreement. As will be discussed below, the
misunderstanding in this case was not nearly so significant.

                                             13
induce a plea. And in applying its test, I am not sure that the majority leaves any room for

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

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

relevant circumstances and likely consequences” standard from Brady, 34 it puts all of its

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

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

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

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

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

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

involuntary and unknowing. That is, in merely concluding that defendant’s habitual-

offender status was a “relevant circumstance” of her plea without going on to analyze

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

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

contrary to the totality approach required by Brady. 35 I again emphasize that the extent of

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

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

a plea.

33
  For example, the majority does not require defendant to explain how correcting this
minor error would have impacted the parties’ plea negotiations or her willingness to plead
guilty.
34
     Brady, 397 US at 748.
35
  Id. at 749 (“The voluntariness of [a] plea can be determined only by considering all of
the relevant circumstances surrounding it.”) (emphasis added).

                                              14
         Applying this framework to this case, I conclude that any misunderstanding as to

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

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

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

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

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

understanding of the consequences of that plea. 36

         Again, regardless of whether defendant was properly charged as a second- or third-

offense habitual offender, the result of the plea bargain is the same: she received a within-

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

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

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

85 months, the upper value of which would have increased to 106 months with a second-

offense habitual-offender enhancement and to 127 months with a third-offense habitual-

offender enhancement. The benefits of her plea were not “grossly exaggerated” given that

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

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

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

guidelines minimum sentence range from a habitual enhancement by receiving an

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

36
     See Brady, 397 US at 748.
37
     See Hammond, 528 F2d at 19.

                                             15
was itself an extremely meaningful benefit. In sum, defendant received benefit from the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

her plea.

                                  III. CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Court of Appeals.

                                                        Brian K. Zahra
                                                        Elizabeth T. Clement
                                                        David F. Viviano

                                            16