People of Michigan v. Timothy Wade Horton

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan July 25, 2017 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice 150815 Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Joan L. Larsen Plaintiff-Appellee, Kurtis T. Wilder, Justices v SC: 150815 COA: 324071 Oakland CC: 2013-247924-FH TIMOTHY WADE HORTON, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________/ 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 US 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 US 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 F3d 162, 166 (CA 3, 2007); United States v Pickett, 941 F2d 411, 416-417 (CA 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 US at 58-59 (holding that Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 (1984), applies to a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea-bargaining process); Lee v United States, 582 US ___ (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). I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. July 25, 2017 t0703 Clerk