Motion to withdraw a plea based on the ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Brown; People v White; Lafler v Cooper; Judicial reassignment; MCR 2.003(C)(1)(e); Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(A); People v Loew

The court held that the trial judge did not err by denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, or by declining to disqualify himself. He pled no contest to charges of assault with intent to commit CSC against the then-15-year-old victim. During his plea hearing, he moved for new counsel, claiming his appointed attorney failed to adequately communicate the terms of the agreement. The trial court granted his motion, new counsel was appointed, and defendant was sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement. The trial court denied his motion to withdraw the plea and correct an invalid sentence. He also unsuccessfully raised an issue of judicial reassignment, based on his claim that the judge represented him in proceedings years earlier. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his plea, holding that: (1) “even after being appointed new counsel, defendant did not move to withdraw his plea,” and only did so after sentencing, and (2) he “explicitly acknowledged during his plea that he understood he was pleading no contest to two charges.” His own statements reflected “that he understood the number of offenses to which he was pleading.” The court also rejected his claim that he was entitled to be resentenced by another judge because the trial judge should have disqualified himself. The judge “allegedly represented defendant at least seven years before presiding over this case. This far exceeds the two-year window under MCR 2.003(C)(1)(e).” Moreover, he did not identify “a reason to believe that any impropriety or the appearance of impropriety existed.” The judge “stated on the record that he did not recall any details from his prior representation of defendant, and that he was not biased personally against defendant in any way. Because an ordinary person could not ‘reasonably question the judge’s integrity, impartiality, or competence on the basis of [his] observable conduct[,]’” this prior representation “did not create the appearance of impropriety in this case under Canon 2(A).” Affirmed.