Background
Stevie Anthony Woodard was charged in two cases arising from separate 2022 home invasions in Kalamazoo. He proceeded to circuit court without preliminary examinations. In one case, the bind-over form contained a signature that did not resemble his other signatures; in the other, only defense counsel signed the waiver provision, leaving Woodard’s signature line blank.
Woodard later entered no-contest pleas and received prison sentences. He moved to withdraw the pleas and dismiss the cases, arguing that the lack of preliminary examinations or valid waivers deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction. He also claimed that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by waiving the examinations without his consent. The trial court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals granted leave in the consolidated appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Woodard identified no error in the plea proceedings that entitled him to withdraw his pleas under MCR 6.310(C)(3). An unconditional plea waives the statutory right to a preliminary examination, and the absence of an examination did not deprive the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction because that statutory right is waivable. Woodard also consented to personal jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings and pleading without objecting to the court’s authority over him.
The court also rejected Woodard’s ineffective-assistance claims. In one case, Woodard stated on the record that he had waived his preliminary examination, and the record did not establish deficient performance or a factual dispute requiring a Ginther hearing. In the other, even assuming counsel performed deficiently, Woodard failed to show prejudice: the record reflected his desire to accept responsibility, and there was no evidence that better advocacy would have produced a better plea offer or caused him to proceed to trial.
Key Takeaways
- An unconditional plea in Michigan waives the defendant’s statutory right to a preliminary examination.
- A missing or defective preliminary-examination waiver does not eliminate circuit-court subject-matter jurisdiction because the examination is a waivable statutory procedure.
- A plea-based ineffective-assistance claim requires evidence that counsel’s alleged error probably changed the plea process’s outcome.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes waivable preliminary-examination rights from nonwaivable subject-matter jurisdiction. It also underscores that defendants seeking to undo pleas based on counsel’s handling of preliminary examinations must establish both deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different plea outcome.