PEOPLE OF MI V JORGE CHANSUOLME JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 6, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 189332
Detroit Recorder’s Court
LC No. 94-013575-FC
JORGE CHANSUOLME, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Reilly and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317;
MSA 28.549, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty to forty years’ imprisonment. He
appeals as of right and we affirm.
Defendant first argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his plea hearing which
thereby invalidated his pleas of nolo contendere. We disagree. Even if defendant’s trial counsel failed
to discuss the maximum possible sentence with him, that maximum was presented to defendant at the
plea hearing by the trial court and consequently, his plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and
understandingly. MCR 6.302; People v Swirles (After Remand), 218 Mich App 133, 138; 553
NW2d 357 (1996). Specifically, the following exchange occurred at defendant’s plea hearing:
The Court: There’s one other thing I have to tell you and that is the maximum
sentence for murder in the second degree is life imprisonment or any number of
years up to life. I indicated to [defense counsel] and [the prosecutor] that I would
stay within the guidelines that are recommended by the Supreme Court as to your
minimum which is what [defense counsel] is concerned about for you; do you
understand that? [Emphasis added.]
The Defendant: Yes.
The trial court specifically stated that the maximum possible sentence was life. Further, the trial
court stated that it would stay within the guidelines regarding defendant’s minimum sentence, but made
-1
no such promise with regard to the maximum sentence.1 In addition, there is no evidence on the record
to indicate that defendant’s trial counsel led defendant to believe that a sentence “within the guidelines”
meant that his maximum sentence would be within the guidelines. In fact, defendant’s trial counsel
stated that he only discussed the possible minimum sentences with defendant and that he never
discussed the possible maximum sentences with defendant. Trial counsel’s failure to discuss the
maximum sentence could not have been prejudicial because the trial court specifically informed
defendant that the maximum sentence could be life in prison. Further, the plea agreement form signed
by defendant indicated that the statutory maximum penalty for each count of second-degree murder was
life. Defendant, therefore, fails to meet the required burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of
counsel because he failed to show that his trial counsel’s actions prejudiced his decision to enter a plea
of nolo contendere. See People v Haynes (After Remand), 221 Mich App 551, 558; 562 NW2d
241 (1997) (plea should not have been withdrawn where hearing transcript demonstrated that the
defendant was fully aware of the possible sentencing consequences).
Next, there is no need to remand for an evidentiary hearing with respect to defendant’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel.2 The record adequately shows that defendant was not prejudiced by
trial counsel’s representation of him at the plea hearing and the record indicates that defendant’s plea
was made knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly. In re Oakland Co Prosecutor, 191 Mich App
113, 120; 477 NW2d 455 (1991).
Defendant argues lastly that the trial court abused it discretion by refusing to resentence him or
to allow him to withdraw his plea. We disagree. There was no basis for resentencing because, as
discussed above, the original sentence was not invalid. MCR 6.429(A); People v Wybrecht, 222
Mich App 160, 166; 564 NW2d 903 (1997). Further, there was no miscarriage of justice and the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit defendant to withdraw his plea because
defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at his plea hearing. People v Ovalle, 222
Mich App 463, 465; 564 NW2d 147 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
1
We note that defendant’s minimum sentence is within the guidelines range of eight to twenty-five years.
2
In unpublished orders dated November 27, 1996 and July 25, 1997, this Court denied defendant’s
motion to remand with respect to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
