Motions to withdraw guilty pleas; MCR 6.310(C); People v Brinkley; Whether the plea agreements were illusory; People v Stovall

Holding that defendant’s pleas were not illusory, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying her motions to withdraw her guilty pleas. She argued that her right to due process was violated by the denial of her motions to withdraw her guilty pleas because the plea agreements were illusory. Defendant was charged with CSC I, producing child sexually abusive activity or material, using a computer to commit a crime, distribution or promotion of child sexually abusive material, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit CSC I, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. She argued that she received no benefit from pleading guilty to CSC I, conspiracy to commit CSC I, and “conspiracy to commit kidnapping because the trial court was unable to sentence her to consecutive terms of imprisonment on these charges.” She was sentenced to 25 to 50 years for CSC I and conspiracy to commit CSC I, and to 70 months to 25 years for conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The court held that the trial court could have sentenced her to more than a minimum term of 25 years “and could have imposed consecutive sentences had” she been convicted of CSC I, producing child sexually abusive activity or material, and using a computer to commit a crime. “Defendant ‘receive[d] many benefits for the plea[s],’ and we conclude that the bargains were not illusory and that defendant’s right to due process was not violated.” Affirmed.