Case Title: PEOPLE OF MI V NAMAR WILEY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 126221

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
Chief Justice:  
Justices: 
Clifford W. Taylor  
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Opinion 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED MARCH 29, 2005 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 
Plaintiff-Appellee, 
v 
No. 126221 
NAMAR WILEY, 
Defendant-Appellant. 
_______________________________ 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
We hold that a sentence that exceeds the sentencing 
guidelines satisfies the requirements of MCL 769.34(3) when 
the record confirms that the sentence was imposed as part 
of a valid plea agreement. 
Under such circumstances, the 
statute does not require the specific articulation of 
additional "substantial and compelling" reasons by the 
sentencing court. 
MCL 769.34(3); People v Babcock, 469 
Mich 247, 256-258; 666 NW2d 231 (2003). 
Furthermore, a defendant waives appellate review of a 
sentence that exceeds the guidelines by understandingly and 
voluntarily entering into a plea agreement to accept that 
1  
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
 
specific sentence.1  MCR 6.302. In that respect, this case 
is similar to People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276, 285; 505 NW2d 
208 (1993), in which this Court stated that a defendant who 
pleads guilty with knowledge of the sentence will not be 
entitled to appellate relief on the basis that the sentence 
is disproportionate. 
See also People v Carter, 462 Mich 
206, 215-216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). 
We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. 
In all other respects, defendant’s application for leave to 
appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that this 
Court should review the other questions presented. 
Clifford W. Taylor
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman 
1 It is fully understandable under the circumstances of
a plea agreement why a defendant would waive appellate
review of such a sentence, because it is implicit in every
plea agreement that the defendant has derived some benefit
from the agreement, otherwise it would not have been 
entered into. 
However, there is no obligation upon the
sentencing court to identify the reasons underlying the
defendant’s 
acceptance 
of 
the 
plea 
agreement 
or 
to 
inventory the specific benefits that the defendant might
have derived. 
Nevertheless, the court should complete the
Sentencing Information Report and determine the appropriate
guideline range, so that it is clear that the agreed-upon
sentence constitutes a departure.
2