Case ID: mich-app_198/html/0130-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Weaver, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v GAINES
    Docket No. 132154.
    Submitted October 2, 1992, at Detroit.
    Decided February 1, 1993, at 9:25 a.m.
    Michael A. Gaines was convicted by a jury in the Oakland Circuit Court, John N. O’Brien, J., of receiving and concealing stolen property worth over $100, and he pleaded guilty of being an habitual offender, second offense. He appealed.
    The Court of Appeals held:
    
    1. The evidentiary issue raised by the defendant was not preserved for appeal because he did not testify and the challenged evidence was not introduced at trial.
    2. The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury concerning the misdemeanor of receiving and concealing stolen property. The instruction was not supported by a rational view of the evidence.
    3. The defendant failed to preserve for appellate consideration the issue concerning the validity of his guilty plea to the habitual offender charge by not moving to withdraw the plea, as required by MCR 6.311(C).
    Affirmed.
    Criminal Law — Guilty Pleas — Habitual Offenders — Validity of Plea.
    The issue of the validity of a plea of guilty of being an habitual offender is not preserved for appeal where the defendant fails to move to withdraw the plea and there is no error that requires a retrial of the underlying felony (MCR 6.311[C]).
    References
    Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 554, 601.
    See ALR Index under Appeal and Error; Guilty Plea.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Richard Thompson, Prosecuting Attorney, Michael J. Modelski, Chief, Appellate Division, and John S. Pallas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people._
    
      
      Stuart L. Young, for the defendant.
    Before: Shepherd, P.J., and Weaver and Taylor, JJ.
   Weaver, J.

Defendant, Michael A. Gaines, was convicted by an Oakland Circuit Court jury of receiving and concealing stolen property over $100, MCL 750.535; MSA 28.803, and thereafter pleaded guilty of being an habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082. He was sentenced to 2 Vi to 7 years’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to another sentence he was then serving. He now appeals as of right. We affirm. This case, pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b), has been decided without oral argument.

Defendant’s evidentiary issue has not been preserved for appellate consideration because he did not testify and the challenged evidence was not introduced at trial. People v Finley, 431 Mich 506; 431 NW2d 19 (1988).

Next, we reject defendant’s claim of instructional error. The misdemeanor instruction defendant requested on receiving and concealing stolen property valued at $100 or less was not supported by a rational view of the evidence. People v Lucas, 188 Mich App 554, 582; 470 NW2d 460 (1991); People v Steele, 429 Mich 13, 21; 412 NW2d 206 (1987).

Finally, defendant’s challenge concerning the validity of his habitual offender plea is not properly before us because he did not move to withdraw the plea in the trial court. MCR 6.311(A) and (C). In People v Quinn, 194 Mich App 250, 254; 486 NW2d 139 (1992), this Court recognized an exception to the formal motion requirement where, among other things, there was a complete failure to inform the defendant on the record of the rights enumerated in MCR 6.302. However, Quinn is distinguishable from this case because, here, there is no error that requires retrial on the underlying offense. Absent this significant fact, we decline to ignore the clear requirements of MCR 6.311(C) that the filing of a motion for plea withdrawal at the trial level is a prerequisite to obtaining relief on appeal.

Affirmed.