Plea validity; Effect of failing to move to withdraw the plea; MCR 6.310(D) & (C); Whether there was a People v Cobbs sentencing agreement; Agreement under People v Killebrew; Whether the plea was knowing & voluntary; Compliance with MCR 6.302(C)(3); Substantial compliance; People v Brinkey; Waiver; Operating while intoxicated, third offense (OWI-III)

In addition to finding that review of defendant’s challenge to the validity of his plea was precluded by his failure to move to withdraw it, the court concluded there was no Cobbs agreement and that his plea was knowing and voluntary. He pled guilty to OWI-III and was sentenced to 14 months to 5 years. He argued that his plea was invalid because the trial court sentenced him above the specified term in a Cobbs agreement without giving him an opportunity to withdraw his plea. But the court noted that he was “precluded from challenging the trial court’s failure to abide by the purported Cobbs agreement because he failed to move in the trial court to withdraw his plea.” It further determined that he “would not have otherwise been entitled to relief because there was no Cobbs agreement and defendant engaged in misconduct.” Given that the nine-month minimum sentence agreement was “reached by the parties, defendant’s plea agreement was a Killebrew agreement rather than a Cobbs agreement.” Further, regardless of which type of agreement it was, “defendant would not have been entitled to withdraw his plea because of his subsequent misconduct.” Between his plea and his sentencing, he “violated the terms of his probation on” a prior CCW conviction multiple times. Next, review of his claim that his plea was not knowing and voluntary was precluded by his failure to move to withdraw it or for relief from judgment. Further, he “waived this argument in the trial court, thereby extinguishing any possible error.” The court added that, although the trial court failed to inform him “that, if it chose not to follow the agreement, [he] would be allowed to withdraw from the agreement[,]” it disagreed that the trial court failed to inform him “that it was not bound to follow the agreement for the” nine-month minimum sentence. While “not perfectly stated, the trial court informed [him] that ‘anything that happens between now and then can upset that apple cart.’ This statement informed [him] that the trial court is not bound by the agreement.” The court noted that strict “‘compliance with MCR 6.302 is not essential’” and he did not “address how the trial court’s failure to strictly comply with MCR 6.302(C)(3) affected the voluntary and knowing nature of the plea.” Affirmed.