Order

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted, and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. We overrule People v. Vonins (After Remand) , 203 Mich.App. 173, 175-176 (1993), and People v. Bordash , 208 Mich.App. 1 (1994), to the extent that they are inconsistent with Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985). A defendant who has entered a plea does not waive his opportunity to attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea by arguing that his or her counsel provided ineffective assistance during the plea bargaining process. Hill , 474 U.S. at 56-57. On remand, the Court of Appeals shall consider: (1) whether a speedy-trial claim is "nonjurisdictional" as defined by People v. New , 427 Mich. 482 (1986) ; (2) if not, whether, by entering a plea of no-contest, the defendant waived his right to argue that his counsel was ineffective for failing to assert his constitutional right to a speedy trial before he entered his plea, see e.g., Washington v. Sobina , 475 F.3d 162, 166 (C.A.3, 2007) ; United States v. Pickett , 941 F.2d 411, 416-417 (C.A.6, 1991) ; and (3) whether the defendant's no-contest plea was involuntarily entered based on his claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance when counsel failed to advise the defendant during the plea proceedings that he would waive his right to raise his speedy-trial claim on appeal, see Hill , 474 U.S. at 58-59 (holding that Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), applies to a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea-bargaining process); Lee v. United States , 582 U.S. –––– (2017) (Docket No. 16-327) (holding that a defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea, despite his failure to identify a meritorious defense that he would have raised at trial).