Motion to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing; MCR 6.310; People v Guyton; Whether there was a defect in the plea-taking process; People v Warren; Voluntariness of the plea; MCR 6.302(A); Correction of the PSIR

Holding that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences. But it remanded for entry of an order directing that the references to his being arrested for CSC “in entry No. 8 on p. 6 of the [PSIR] be redacted consistent with the plea agreement.” He pled guilty to unlawful imprisonment, assault by strangulation, and AWIGBH after an incident in which he barricaded the victim in her garage and assaulted her. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 25 to 40 years for each conviction. It denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In a prior appeal, the court denied leave for lack of merit in the grounds presented. But the Supreme Court remanded for consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the court agreed with the trial court that defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea should have been denied, albeit for different reasons. The trial court erred by finding “the parties did not agree to strike references to defendant’s arrest for [CSC] from the criminal history section of the PSIR . . . because the plea agreement explicitly provided that all references to [CSC] would be redacted from the PSIR, except those contained in the victim impact statement.” In addition, because “the plea agreement was that all reference to defendant being arrested for or committing CSC would, except for any such reference in the victim impact statement portion of the PSIR, be redacted, that portion of entry No. 8 should have been as well.” And although “neither party has cited to any authority that precludes the court from redacting this information, the governing statute seems to permit the redaction.” Because the parties “agreed that any references to defendant being arrested for or otherwise charged with CSC were to be redacted, any such information would be irrelevant if contained within the report.” As such, on remand, the trial court “shall enter an order that the information quoted above from entry No. 8 be redacted. At that point, defendant’s plea will not have been illusory as he will have received the full extent of the agreement.”