People of Michigan v. Timothy Wade Horton ( 2017 )

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 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 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 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 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