In 2010, defendant Alan Trowbridge was arrested and charged
with five counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Trowbridge rejected
two plea offers from the prosecutor. On the first day of trial, his attorney
and the prosecutor informed the court that Trowbridge had accepted a third
offer to enter a plea to a reduced charge. But the trial court had a policy of
refusing to accept such pleas after the final pretrial conference, and so it
rejected the plea deal. Trowbridge then proceeded to trial. Two counts were
dismissed by the trial court; the jury then convicted Trowbridge of all three
counts submitted to it.
At sentencing, the trial judge informed the parties that he
had just discovered that MCL 750.520b(2)(c) required Trowbridge to be sentenced
to life without parole, because he had previously pled guilty to fourth-degree
criminal sexual conduct. Trowbridge and his attorney had been unaware of this
mandatory sentence. Trowbridge’s counsel had advised him that, if convicted, he
faced a likelihood of being sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Trowbridge appealed his convictions and sentences. He argued
that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to tell him that
he faced life in prison if convicted. He argued that, if he had known of the
possibility of a life sentence, he would have accepted a plea deal. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the
trial court for an evidentiary hearing, to make a record regarding Trowbridge’s
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. After the hearing, the trial court
concluded that Trowbridge’s counsel’s performance was “objectively
unreasonable.” But it also ruled that
Trowbridge failed to show that his counsel’s subpar performance caused him any
prejudice, and that it was “almost certain” that Trowbridge would have made the
same decision if he had known about the mandatory life sentence. The trial
court noted defense counsel’s testimony that he had told Trowbridge that he
faced a minimum sentence of 30 years, and that he also advised his client that
his chances at trial were slim. The trial court also noted that Trowbridge
maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings, which caused the trial
court to conclude that Trowbridge would not have admitted guilt in order to
accept a plea offer.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam
opinion. The panel stated that it was “not left with the definite and firm
conviction that the trial court made a mistake when it concluded that defendant
had not established a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the
prosecution’s final pretrial plea offer with proper advice regarding the
mandatory sentence he faced if convicted at trial.”
Trowbridge appealed. On December 23, 2014, the Court ordered
oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR
7.302(H)(1) and directed the parties to address whether the Court of Appeals
correctly resolved the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in
light of People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557 (2014).