Whether defendant should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea; Whether the trial court complied with MCR 6.301(B)(1); Whether the trial court followed MCR 6.302(E); Sentencing; Whether the trial court properly advised him on the issue of concurrent sentencing

The court held that defendant had not shown plain error affecting his substantial rights in any of the claimed defects to his plea-taking process and he was not entitled to withdraw his plea. Thus, it affirmed his guilty plea convictions of larceny from a person and domestic violence (third offense). Defendant raised three defects in his plea-taking process. First he asserted that the trial court “did not comply with MCR 6.301(B)(1)’s requirement of naming the offense defendant was pleading guilty to because it did not state that defendant was pleading guilty as a fourth-offense habitual offender.” That was incorrect. “While the court may have been more specific by using the word ‘fourth’ when explaining to defendant his maximum possible sentence, the trial court substantially complied with MCR 6.302(B)(1) and the record does not reflect that defendant’s substantial rights were violated, i.e., that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Next, he asserted that the trial court’s “failure to ask whether either counsel was aware of any promises, threats, or inducements for defendant to accept the plea that have not yet been disclosed on the record violated MCR 6.302(E) and therefore constituted a defect in the plea-taking process.” Taking all facts into consideration, defendant had “not shown how the defect in the proceedings on this point prejudiced him or otherwise violated his substantial rights.” Lastly, he claimed “there was a defect in the plea process because the trial court failed to properly advise defendant on the issue of concurrent sentencing. At most, any inaccuracy in the explanation of concurrent sentencing led defendant to believe he was agreeing to be sentenced to a longer term than he actually was.”