Serial Drunk Driver HATES His Prison Sentence — Judge Has ZERO Sympathy

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]when Mr. Hughes was deciding to plead guilty and when he ultimately presented himself for the plea before your honor, he was not properly advised of the fact that this particular charge to OUI L third per se carried a mandatory he was advised by your honor on the record of the uh potential penalties of 1 to 5 or 30 to uh whatever days in jail plus probation.

[00:00:31]Uh the problem with that advice on the record was there was no mention of the uh prison being mandatory and I think it was >> It's not man- It's not mandatory. Isn't it either or? It's either a period of 1 to 5 years or a period of probation of 30 days or more. There isn't a mandatory There [clears throat] isn't a mandatory prison. There is a mandatory provision if your honor decides, which your honor did decide to do, in imposing the prison sentence. How did I not tell How did I not tell him that it was 1 to 5?

[00:01:06]You told him that it was 1 to 5 but >> [clears throat] >> uh as with any statute that a defendant is advised of, there's always the time that's advised which is the maximum. Like for instance, assault with intent to do great bodily harm is punishable by 10 years. Uh receiving and concealing is punishable by 5 years but those terms are not mandatory. In this case, the 1 to 5 that he is advised of is mandatory and it's our position that without advising him of the fact that if he receives a the prison alternative, that it is a mandatory 1 to 5, that was what uh created this >> But if if I if I tell him it's 1 to 5, Mhm.

[00:01:48]how is there any discretion?

[00:01:51]I I'm applying some common sense here.

[00:01:53]Maybe that's something that you're not doing. I told him exactly what the felony information said, that it is either 1 to 5 years in confinement or a term of probation with the minimum of 30 days. If I had told you that it cost you at least $1,000 to get out of jail or I told you to get out of jail you got to pay $1,000 to $5,000. You know the minimum is $1,000.

[00:02:20]How does that not tell him a minimum of 1 to 5?

[00:02:24]Because it tells him what the statute is saying much like uh the examples I use that say what the maximum uh prison time term is on any given charge. It does not mean in those other statutes that uh prison is required. In fact, uh GBH can require probation.

[00:02:43]needed to be made aware of both by your honor and his counsel was that in the event that this uh this court decided to impose the prison sentence, he needed to be made aware of the fact that that was minimum of 1 to 5 and possibly even more on the minimum.

[00:02:59]And >> Do you have any Besides having it cuz I believe that I told him it is a minimum of 1 year to 5 years in confinement.

[00:03:08]How did I not tell him that? I Or do this, show me a case where it says that in this instance I have to say the words mandatory minimum and mandatory or mandatory minimum.

[00:03:19]I don't have a case that says that specifically, but again I could uh the comments >> There goes that argument.

[00:03:26]Okay.

[00:03:26]>> There goes that argument. Okay.

[00:03:29]All right. So, I did tell him it was 1 to 5 years or a probationary period with 30 days to 1 year. So, I did tell him exactly what the punishment was.

[00:03:43]And I it it it doesn't take a whole lot of stretch of intelligence to figure out that when somebody tells you it's 1 to 5, the minimum starts at 1. All right, let's go on to the next argument. The next argument is something regarding Mr. Hartwell.

[00:03:59]And I'm sorry, the statement about What was the next argument? The next argument is regarding Oh, Resentencing.

[00:04:06]the sentencing. So, let's go and turn that to that turn to that argument.

[00:04:11]Certainly. And again, it's our position that at the time of sentencing, it seemed like the focus of the prosecutor and ultimately the sentence that was imposed it just dealt primarily with punishment and didn't really go to rehabilitating what the problem is in the first place. It's always been my position, Your Honor, in these cases that alcoholism and drunk driving numerous times caused by alcoholism is a public health issue. It needs to be addressed as a public health issue as opposed to a throwing the individual in prison because I don't think that >> What's wrong What's wrong with prison?

[00:04:51]Aren't there rehab programs in prison versus what there are in jail? I've just recently had I've just recently had lectures. In fact, the entire judiciary of the state of Michigan met in Grand Rapids about two months ago, and one of our lectures was from the Department of Health and or Department of Corrections about all the programming they have.

[00:05:10]So, do they not have I'm sorry.

[00:05:13]I do acknowledge they have programming in there, judge, but not the type of programming that you can get outside where you actually take it on yourself as the defendant to would A, admit that you have a problem, B, get yourself into treatment. And I don't mean just go to twice a week. I mean, get yourself into it in Get yourself a sponsor. Go to AA five or six times a week if not more. Only then can you start undoing the damage as the defendant because I think as we've seen in these types of cases time and time again that if you just force someone into a program that they really don't complete it. They they just backslide and I think in this case the comments I saw Mr. Hughes make at the time of sentencing, he was willing and able and attempting to take matters into his own hand and accept responsibility which I think is number one in a in a case like this where you're dealing with alcoholism and I would ask the court to give him the opportunity because if in fact he does not comply, this court always can with a stroke of a pen yank him back and send him back to prison.

[00:06:30]And that's So let me let me and here's why I'm approaching it the way I am.

[00:06:34]Your first argument is a motion to withdraw the plea which is pursuant to MCR 6.310.

[00:06:44]So that would apply to your first argument. This argument is actually not made can't be made underneath 6.310.

[00:06:52]So what what rule are you making this argument under?

[00:06:57]I'm just making this argument as a post-conviction argument.

[00:07:01]Relief from All right, so this is a motion for relief from judgment.

[00:07:05]Yes. take a look here. All right.

[00:07:08]>> [snorts] >> And the So what are the grounds for the relief from judgment here? In other words, do you think there was something that was done incorrectly or are you just re-arguing what you think should have been argued at at sentencing? No, I think what was done incorrectly was there are certain factors that need to be focused on when imposing sentence and arguing for sentence and one of them is rehabilitation which I think was totally overlooked.

[00:07:37]I'm not trying to place blame on anybody here, but I think the fact of the matter is that's what this man really needs is rehabilitation because So, let's take a look at it. He's been in and out of jail. He's been through sobriety court.

[00:07:52]He has failed probation repeatedly. And according to the pre-sentence investigation report, he had some substance abuse treatment at Catholic Human Services, which he hadn't completed, and that was earlier this year. I understand he was currently seeing Catholic Human Services at the jail.

[00:08:12]So, it looks like he and I'm pretty sure I know I took this all into consideration. I know that because I've got the pre-sentence investigation report in front of me, and I've got all the blue ink that I have right circled every single one of them that says violations of probation.

[00:08:26]He's had multiple drinking and drivings.

[00:08:28]He's had multiple convictions. He's had multiple probationary periods. He's had multiple periods of jail, and he's had multiple probation violations and has failed several attempts at rehabilitation.

[00:08:40]That was my reasoning for placing him into a prison term.

[00:08:44]So, I don't understand It just seems like what you're doing is arguing that I should have taken some other things into consider I should have done something else. Now, let's take a look here also.

[00:08:55]One of the things that you didn't cite or reference is that during the taking of the plea, I asked the defendant if he had been promised and if Mr. Hartel had told him exactly what the sentence would be, and his answer was no. I I I don't understand what the argument is. You go ahead and continue to argue.

[00:09:15]That I've pretty much summed up my argument, Your Honor. And as far as the issue regarding the question of potential coercion and so forth, I cited in my brief for the I believe it was the court of appeals that said even a conclusory statement by the defendant does not preclude the defendant uh from uh arguing that on a post-conviction motion.

[00:09:39]And what is he what is he arguing now?

[00:09:43]That he was not I'm sorry.

[00:09:46]No, it's all right. Go ahead, sir. That he was not properly advised of the uh the potential time constraints that he was putting himself into when he was entering the plea, that he was actually advised something totally different uh by his lawyer. One moment.

[00:10:04]Mr. Wiggins, any arguments, sir?

[00:10:07]Thank you, Your Honor. I guess I'll take these in the same order the court did.

[00:10:10]So, in regard to the the mandatory sentence, I >> [clears throat] >> I I think what the argument is there is that he wasn't advised that uh if he was sentenced to the 1 to 5, it would be a prison term, not a jail term.

[00:10:26]And that's how I interpret the argument.

[00:10:28]I don't know if I'm right on that, but I I don't see that. The fact that where they serve the sentence, I don't believe is I didn't see any case law that the fact that I could tell him it's either prison or jail. I have to tell him it's 1 to 5 years, which is exactly what I told him. And I would agree with that, Your Honor, on It is. I've got this I've got the uh uh transcript in front of me, and I read it verbatim earlier. I told him that he faced 1 to 5 years.

[00:10:55]Moving on to the the sentence and the rehab, I uh I wonder what more we could have done.

[00:11:01]He was As the court already referenced, he was placed in the sobriety court. He was in that court for a period of time and then absconded for a year. He was in absconding status when uh he was picked up on the new charge that he was sentenced for.

[00:11:14]Uh as the court referenced during sentencing, I believe he had It was either 10 or 12 probation violations over the last 10 years.

[00:11:22]And uh not to make light of the situation, but when everybody's locked up, they all Everybody wants rehab. Everybody's ready for a change at that point. And I think what more we could have done um um especially as the sobriety court is designed to be an intensive rehabilitation program, I don't know what more we could have done. So, I I don't believe there's a claim there. I believe the court um I believe the sentence was appropriate.

[00:11:50]Um moving on to ineffective assistance of counsel claim, I don't believe based on I did not receive the affidavit, but at least based on the statements contained in the brief citing the affidavit, it's clear that Mr. Uh Hughes was aware that he was facing a prison sentence. Um it's argued that uh something to the effect that if the defendant had entered a plea that day, he was advised by his client by his attorney that he would uh receive likely receive a jail sentence.

[00:12:19]Um and I think to show that the attorney was just didn't give [clears throat] bad advice, but was just mistaken in what he thought the court would impose as a sentence.

[00:12:30]That matches up with what the Department of Corrections recommendation was. So, I don't believe that rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. The attorney was just wrong in what he what he considered the advice or what he thought the court would sentence to.

[00:12:43]I don't believe that the uh uh defendant has made an argument as to his claims. I don't believe granting the motion would be appropriate at this time. I think it should be denied. Um if the court does believe that there is a question on whether there's an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, I believe it'd be appropriate to set it for a hearing and uh we hear from Mr. Hartzell.

[00:13:04]Thank you.

[00:13:05]Thank you. All right. Court said the following during the taking of the plea.

[00:13:10]Quote, "Mr. Hartzell has probably discussed with you the Michigan sentencing guidelines, applied his experience, and given you an idea or estimate as to what he thinks the court might sentence you to.

[00:13:23]My question for you is, has he or anyone promised you exactly what the sentence would be from the court? Mr. Hughes said, "No, your honor."

[00:13:32]Then I said, "Quote, knowing all that, do you still wish to enter the plea of guilty to count two, operating while intoxicated as a third offender?" His answer was quote, "Yes, your honor."

[00:13:45]I asked him if anybody had made any promises, threats, or inducements. The answer was no. And again, I asked him if anybody had promised him what the sentence would be other than giving him guidelines and estimates. The answer was no.

[00:13:59]The court took into consideration the entirety of the pre-sentence investigation report.

[00:14:05]And again, their pre-sentence investigation report demonstrates that the defendant has a significant substance abuse problem.

[00:14:15]The defendant has had the opportunity at sobriety court and failed the program.

[00:14:19]The defendant had been given periods of jail. The defendant had been given opportunities of probation. The defendant had been had violated probation I think it was at least 10 times. In fact, no CCP one of the drinking and driving is listed under 7284 section.

[00:14:37]On the drinking and driving that I do see, violated probation on each one of them was discharged unsuccessfully. Again, the court believes that it provided One, I don't find that one to five is a mandatory minimum.

[00:14:54]I believe that there's a choice. In fact, the language stated on the record by the court is that there is a choice.

[00:15:01]Again, the court finds that it stated to the defendant at the taking of the plea that you're charged quote, "You're charged as an third operating while intoxicated felony." That increases the punishment to a minimum of $500 to $5,000 plus either one to five years confinement or a term of probation with a minimum of 30 days to 1 year in jail and or I'm sorry and at least 40 hours must be served consecutively. Plus there would be 60 to 180 hours that should have been days of community service. So the only thing I advised him incorrectly of was of the days of community service.

[00:15:43]I said hours instead of days.

[00:15:46]The court did advise the defendant that it was 1 to 5 years.

[00:15:50]That I would also assume was disclosed to the defendant when he received the copy of the felony complaint, which he acknowledged in the file and in the felony sorry the felony information includes that information of what the maximum puni- I'm sorry what the minimum maximum punish- punishments are and that the defendant was advised of that also during the arraignment in the district court level.

[00:16:13]And there was even a preliminary examination that I see in the file.

[00:16:19]I can understand and I respect the fact that Mr. Hughes is disappointed with the sentence of the court. The sentence that the court gave him was lawful. It was in the middle actually at the bottom end of the guideline range.

[00:16:32]And the court therefore denies the defendant's motions.

[00:16:38]Mr. Wiggins, could you please draft an order to that effect?

[00:16:42]>> Yes, sir. Thank you.

[00:16:43]>> Subscribe for more real courtroom moments.