Background
The prosecution appealed by leave granted from the judgment of sentence in Clinton Circuit Court case no. 2024-011675-FH after Jordan Scott Coverdale pleaded guilty to felony third-offense domestic violence under MCL 750.81(5). The charges arose from Coverdale’s August 17 and 18, 2024 assault of NL, with whom he had a dating relationship, and his later struggle with arresting officers. In the domestic-violence file, the prosecution charged two counts under MCL 750.81(2), filed a third-offense notice listing 2017 and 2022 convictions, and filed a fourth-offense habitual-offender notice. In a second file, no. 2024-011676-FH, it charged two police-obstruction offenses under MCL 750.81d, again with a habitual-offender notice.
Under the plea agreement, Coverdale pleaded guilty to third-offense domestic violence and attempted assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer. The prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining counts and habitual-offender enhancements, and the sentences were to run concurrently. At the January 27, 2025 sentencing date, however, the prosecution disclosed that Huron County had confirmed that the listed 2022 domestic-violence conviction did not exist. The charge had been dismissed when Coverdale pleaded guilty to methamphetamine possession, and the Law Enforcement Information Network entry was erroneous.
The prosecution initially obtained an adjournment to seek to set aside the plea but did not file that motion. Instead, its February 19 sentencing memorandum identified a March 12, 2019 assault-and-battery conviction involving KS, with whom Coverdale had resided and shared a child. Coverdale did not dispute that conviction or the relationship facts. The trial court agreed that it qualified under MCL 750.81(5), but held the third-offense notice defective under MCL 750.81b. It treated the offense as second-offense domestic violence, a one-year misdemeanor, and imposed concurrent terms of 270 days in jail and two years’ probation in each file while retaining the prosecution’s plea concessions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of sentence in no. 2024-011675-FH and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion, without retaining jurisdiction. It expressly declined to decide whether MCL 750.81b applies to third-offense enhancements under MCL 750.81(5). The statute still refers to MCL 750.81(3) and (4), notwithstanding the Legislature’s 2016 renumbering of the domestic-violence provisions. The panel reviewed statutory-interpretation and separation-of-powers questions de novo, and amendment and plea-agreement decisions for abuse of discretion.
Assuming MCL 750.81b applied, the erroneous identification of the 2022 conviction was curable by amendment. MCR 6.112(H) permits amendment of an information or enhancement notice unless the amendment would unfairly surprise or prejudice the defendant, and MCL 750.81b(a) expressly contemplates an amended charging document without imposing the habitual-offender statute’s 21-day deadline. Substituting the 2019 conviction did not increase the enhancement or maximum punishment: Coverdale had been charged with, pleaded guilty to, and been advised about the third-offense felony from the outset. The prosecution disclosed the substitute conviction and supporting documents more than a month before sentencing, Coverdale did not dispute their accuracy, and the trial court found the conviction qualifying. The panel therefore held that the prosecution was entitled to amend and that the notice error did not require misdemeanor sentencing.
Independently, even if the notice were defective, the trial court could not sentence Coverdale for a lesser offense over the prosecution’s objection while preserving the concessions made for his felony plea. Relying on the prosecutor’s constitutional charging authority and People v Siebert and People v Smith, the court held that the prosecution had to be permitted to withdraw from the agreement if the bargained-for result could not be imposed. A defective plea likewise would call for an opportunity for the defendant to withdraw, not judicial revision of the bargain. The panel did not decide whether Coverdale’s plea was invalid: he had not challenged it below, sought withdrawal, or cross-appealed, and his appellate brief asked that the plea stand.
Key Takeaways
- The court did not resolve whether MCL 750.81b’s notice requirements govern enhancements under MCL 750.81(5).
- On these facts, substituting an undisputed qualifying conviction was a permissible correction that neither increased the enhancement nor unfairly surprised or prejudiced Coverdale.
- A trial court cannot retain the prosecution’s plea concessions while unilaterally replacing the bargained-for felony disposition with a lesser offense.
- The judgment of sentence in the domestic-violence file was vacated and the case remanded; the court did not retain jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision separates two issues that the trial court had effectively combined: whether an enhancement notice can be corrected and what remedy follows if an accepted plea bargain cannot be implemented. Its amendment analysis is circumstance-specific, emphasizing the unchanged felony exposure, timely disclosure, undisputed predicate conviction, and opportunity to contest the evidence rather than announcing that every defective notice is curable.
The plea-agreement holding also supplies an independent basis for reversal. Even an assumed notice defect or plea deficiency would not authorize a court to impose a new bargain on the prosecutor. The opinion leaves unresolved both the statutory scope of MCL 750.81b and any challenge to the validity of Coverdale’s plea.