Case Name: PEOPLE v. ROBERTS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1980-04-23
Citations: 97 Mich. App. 181
Docket Number: Docket No. 78-5153
Parties: PEOPLE v ROBERTS
Judges: Before: Allen, P.J., and M. F. Cavanagh and C. W. Simon, Jr., JJ._
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 97
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v ROBERTS
Docket No. 78-5153.
Submitted March 6, 1980, at Grand Rapids.
Decided April 23, 1980.
Jerrold T. Roberts was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of assault with intent to commit sexual penetration, Kent Circuit Court, Roman J. Snow, J. Defendant appeals, alleging that because the prosecutor had not yet brought habitual offender charges against the defendant, the prosecutor’s promise to forego such charges in exchange for the defendant’s plea rendered the plea bargain illusory. Held:
The plea bargain was not illusory. At the time that the plea bargain was made the defendant was in fact a potential subject of habitual offender charges.
Affirmed.
Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Plea Bargains — Habitual Offenders — Illusory Plea Bargain.
A defendant’s plea bargain is not illusory where, as a part of the bargain, the prosecutor promises to forego habitual offender proceedings against the defendant and where, at the time the plea bargain is made, the defendant is in fact a potential subject of habitual offender charges.
References for Points in Headnote
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 484-496.
39 Am Jur 2d, Habitual Criminals and Subsequent Offenders § 22.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, David H. Sawyer, Prosecuting Attorney, and Carol S. Irons, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
Buth, Wood & Weidaw, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Allen, P.J., and M. F. Cavanagh and C. W. Simon, Jr., JJ._
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Following plea negotiations, defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault with intent to commit sexual penetration, contrary to MCL 750.520g(l); MSA 28.788(7)(1). Following sentence, this appeal follows as of right.
Citing People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96; 282 NW2d 168 (1979), defendant urges reversal. He alleges that since part of the plea bargain involved the prosecutor's promise to foresake habitual offender proceedings, his plea was the product of an illusory bargain. We reject his argument for the reasons set forth in People v Hutcherson, 96 Mich App 365; 292 NW2d 466 (1980).
Affirmed.