Late last month, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled in People v. Cole, that a defendant who pleaded guilty to sex crimes could withdraw his plea because the trial court neglected to tell him that along with a 5- to 15-year prison sentence would come a lifetime of electronic monitoring.
Justice Michael Cavanagh’s opinion stated::
MCR 6.302 and constitutional due process require a trial court to inform a defendant pleading guilty or no contest to first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) or second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSCII) that he or she will be sentenced to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring, if required by MCL 750.520b(2)(d) or MCL 750.520c(2)(b).
Yesterday, the Court amended MCR 6.302 to explicitly reflect the holding in Cole. The added language is underscored in the block quote below.
MCR 6.302(B)(1) now provides:
(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, including a requirement for mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring under MCL 750.520b or 750.520c[.]
The amendment is effective immediately, although the Court will take comments until Oct. 1, and will consider the matter at a later public hearing.
In a proposed amendment of MCR 2.105, plaintiffs seeking a court order for substituted service of process would be required, as part of the “diligent inquiry” to locate the defendant, to use the Internet.
The proposed amendment is underscored in the block quote below.
MCR 2.105(I)(2) would provide:
A request for an order under the rule must be made in a verified motion dated not more than 14 days before it is filed. The motion must set forth sufficient facts to show that process cannot be served under this rule and must state the defendant’s address or last known address, or that no address of the defendant is known. If the name or present address of the defendant is unknown, the moving party must set forth facts showing diligent inquiry to ascertain it. For purposes of this rule, “diligent inquiry” shall include an online search if the moving party has reasonable access to the Internet. A hearing on the motion is not required unless the court so directs.
To submit comments concerning the changes to either rule, follow the appropriate link for information.