Defendant's admission establishes that he knew of the existence of the eyewitness well before trial commenced and failed to come forward with that information. A remand is unwarranted under these circumstances. Defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw plea in the trial court raising the claim now advanced for the first time on appeal. This failure precludes appellate review. VIII Defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court made an independent finding of guilt on an arson charge that was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement, and for which there was no proof of defendant's guilt, and then sentenced defendant based on that finding.
Defendant mischaracterizes the record.
A trial court may not make an independent finding of guilt and then sentence a defendant based on that finding. Our review of the trial court's sentencing articulation reveals that the court's reference to the arson charge constituted nothing more than a statement of the fact that the arson charge was about to be dismissed pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement used to secure defendant's habitual offender conviction. The trial court made no statements during its sentencing articulation from which we can infer that the court made an independent finding of guilt on the arson charge and then sentenced defendant as an arsonist. Defendant failed to challenge the scoring of these variables during sentencing and, therefore, failed to create an evidentiary record upon which we could rely to assess the merits of his claims. We decline to grant defendant's request for a remand.