Cobbs plea in Michigan

2023For these reasons, the panel held that the fourth prong had not been met, recognizing that “[r]eversal is not justified under the fourth Carines prong if the ‘underlying purposes’ of the right at issue have been alternatively upheld.” King, unpub op at 8-9, quoting People v Cain, 498 Mich 108, 119 ; 869 NW2d 829 (2015).

2023For these reasons, the panel held that the fourth prong had not been met, recognizing that “[r]eversal is not justified under the fourth Carines prong if the ‘underlying purposes’ of the right at issue have been alternatively upheld.” King, unpub op at 8-9, quoting People v Cain, 498 Mich 108, 119 ; 869 NW2d 829 (2015).

2026At the hearing on the renewed motion, defense counsel argued that specific performance was required because a condition of the plea deal was waiver of the preliminary examination, 1 People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276, 283 ; 505 NW2d 208 (1993). 2 People v Killebrew, 416 Mich 189, 206-208 ; 330 NW2d 834 (1982). -2- which defendant did, that defendant relied on the plea offer to his detriment by waiving his preliminary examination, and that the requests for a Killebrew agreement or a Cobbs hearing were not counteroffers and therefore did not signal rejection of the offer.

2026At the hearing on the renewed motion, defense counsel argued that specific performance was required because a condition of the plea deal was waiver of the preliminary examination, 1 People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276, 283 ; 505 NW2d 208 (1993). 2 People v Killebrew, 416 Mich 189, 206-208 ; 330 NW2d 834 (1982). -2- which defendant did, that defendant relied on the plea offer to his detriment by waiving his preliminary examination, and that the requests for a Killebrew agreement or a Cobbs hearing were not counteroffers and therefore did not signal rejection of the offer.

2023However, the panel opined that the “underlying purposes” of the right to counsel were upheld during the Cobbs plea because “defense counsel played a significant role in the plea process” and thus defendant had “actually reaped the benefits of being represented by counsel despite purporting to represent himself.” Id. at 10. 4 Further, defendant showed some knowledge of his rights by citing Faretta v California, 422 US 806 ; 95 S Ct 2525 ; 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975), and echoing this Court’s language in Anderson, 398 Mich at 367-368 .

2023However, the panel opined that the “underlying purposes” of the right to counsel were upheld during the Cobbs plea because “defense counsel played a significant role in the plea process” and thus defendant had “actually reaped the benefits of being represented by counsel despite purporting to represent himself.” Id. at 10. 4 Further, defendant showed some knowledge of his rights by citing Faretta v California, 422 US 806 ; 95 S Ct 2525 ; 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975), and echoing this Court’s language in Anderson, 398 Mich at 367-368 .

2023However, the panel opined that the “underlying purposes” of the right to counsel were upheld during the Cobbs plea because “defense counsel played a significant role in the plea process” and thus defendant had “actually reaped the benefits of being represented by counsel despite purporting to represent himself.” Id. at 10. 4 Further, defendant showed some knowledge of his rights by citing Faretta v California, 422 US 806 ; 95 S Ct 2525 ; 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975), and echoing this Court’s language in Anderson, 398 Mich at 367-368 .

2017“A trial court abuses its discretion when it selects an outcome that does not fall within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Young, 276 Mich App 446, 448 ; 740 NW2d 347 (2007). 2 The trial court permitted further hearing on the issue of whether defense counsel had informed defendant that he would be required to register as a sex offender. -2- In Michigan, a plea agreement is generally described as either a Killebrew plea or a Cobbs plea.

2017In such cases: The judge’s announcement . . . of the specific sentence that will be imposed if the defendant chooses to let the plea stand, is the first involvement of the court, and does not constitute bargaining with the defendant, since the judge makes the announcement and determination of the sentence on the judge’s own initiative after reviewing the presentence report. [People v Williams, 464 Mich 174, 179 ; 626 NW2d 899 (2001).] By contrast, in a Cobbs plea, the role of the trial court is considerably expanded.

2017In such cases: The judge’s announcement . . . of the specific sentence that will be imposed if the defendant chooses to let the plea stand, is the first involvement of the court, and does not constitute bargaining with the defendant, since the judge makes the announcement and determination of the sentence on the judge’s own initiative after reviewing the presentence report. [People v Williams, 464 Mich 174, 179 ; 626 NW2d 899 (2001).] By contrast, in a Cobbs plea, the role of the trial court is considerably expanded.

2017“A trial court abuses its discretion when it selects an outcome that does not fall within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Young, 276 Mich App 446, 448 ; 740 NW2d 347 (2007). 2 The trial court permitted further hearing on the issue of whether defense counsel had informed defendant that he would be required to register as a sex offender. -2- In Michigan, a plea agreement is generally described as either a Killebrew plea or a Cobbs plea.