|
No. 135247
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Richard J. Goodman |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Macomb - Servitto, E.) |
|
|
| Brian Lamorand, |
|
|
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Mitchell T. Foster |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Brian Lamorand, his mother, stepfather, brother, and half-brother were all charged with manufacturing marijuana, a felony; the marijuana was discovered by investigators at the house where Lamorand’s family members lived in Clinton Township. The prosecutor offered to let Lamorand and his family members (except for his brother, who had admitted manufacturing marijuana) plead to the misdemeanor offense of maintaining a drug house, which would mean a lower sentence than if they were convicted of manufacturing marijuana. A condition of the plea was that if one of the family members declined the plea agreement, none of the others would be permitted to plead.
At the plea hearing, the trial judge asked Lamorand and each of his family members about their plea bargains, including whether any promises, threats, inducement, or coercion had compelled them to plead guilty; they responded no. Lamorand also said that he kept his driver’s license at the Clinton Township house. The judge accepted his guilty plea.
But before he was to be sentenced, Lamorand filed a motion to withdraw his plea. He argued that the plea bargain was inherently coercive because, if he refused to plead, he would effectively subject his mother and other family members to more serious charges. Lamorand also argued that he was innocent because he lived at an address in Detroit and not at the house in Clinton Township; he supplied letters from his employers, as well as neighbors at both the Detroit and Clinton Township locations, who all stated that he did not live at the Clinton Township house and had not lived there for some time. The trial judge denied Lamorand’s motion, stating that Lamorand had already accepted the plea and put his acceptance on the court record, and that the prosecution’s ability to proceed would be compromised if Lamorand was permitted to withdraw the guilty plea. Lamorand appealed, but the Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave “for lack of merit in the grounds presented.” Lamorand appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
In an order dated March 20, 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral argument on whether to grant Lamorand’s application for leave to appeal or take other peremptory action. The Court directed the parties to address: “(1) whether requiring a defendant to plead guilty in order to preserve the right of his family members to benefit from plea bargains is coercive; (2) whether the defendant’s claims of innocence together with the claims of coercion, brought before sentencing, provide sufficient reasons under the standard of review for plea withdrawal before sentencing to support a grant of his motion; (3) whether an evidentiary hearing is required to explore this matter; and (4) whether, if the defendant is allowed to withdraw his plea, the prosecution will be prejudiced and, if so, in what manner.”
Available soon.
Top of Page
|
