Opinion
SC 166643 COA 363711
05-29-2024
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STANLEY JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Kalamazoo CC: 2019-000994-FC
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden, Justices
ORDER
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2023 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Bolden, J. (concurring).
I agree with the Court's order denying leave to appeal because I agree with the Court of Appeals that there was no abuse of discretion when the trial court entered an order vacating defendant's plea. However, I write separately to highlight my concern that there may be inadequate guidance about how to proceed when the prosecution seeks to withdraw a plea agreement once it has been entered and how that relates to the rights of criminal defendants. This Court has not clearly indicated the proper circumstances, nor the proper procedural processes, the prosecution must adhere to when seeking to withdraw a plea post-entry. Compare MCR 6.310(E) with MCR 6.310 (B) and (C); see also People v. Siebert, 450 Mich. 500, 515; 537 N.W.2d 891 (1995) (questioning the necessity and utility of imposing "[t]he gloss of contract jurisprudence" in the context of plea agreements). Although defendant has not shown he is entitled to relief in this case, I believe the bench and bar could benefit from further guidance from this Court.