Case Name: PEOPLE v. DAVIS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-03-31
Citations: 74 Mich. App. 624
Docket Number: Docket No. 29057
Parties: PEOPLE v DAVIS
Judges: Before: D. E. Holbrook, P. J., and R. B. Burns and M. F. Cavanagh, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 74
Pages: 624–627

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v DAVIS
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law—Plea of Guilty—Plea Bargains—Sentences— Prosecutor’s Recommendation—Harsher Sentences.
A plea bargain should not be found to be unfulfilled where (1) the prosecution fulfilled its bargain to recommend a light sentence,
(2) the record shows that the defendant knew that this was only a recommendation and not binding on the trial judge, and
(3) the judge decided that the prosecutor’s recommendation was inapplicable and gave the defendant a much harsher sentence than the one recommended; a factual record must support speculative allegations that a promise remains unfulfilled.
Dissent by D. E. Holbrook, P. J.
2. Criminal Law—Plea of Guilty—Plea Bargains—Sentences—
Prosecutor’s Recommendation—Withdrawal of Recommendation.
A defendant should be entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty and stand trial on the charge where the prosecution has withdrawn its recommendation for a light sentence after agreeing to make such a recommendation as its psurt of a plea bargain; where the record gives some support to the defendant’s allegations that the recommendation was withdrawn the matter should be remanded for a hearing, before a different judge, to determine if the prosecution may have formally or informally withdrawn its recommendation prior to sentencing.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 485, 493, 494.
Enforceability of plea agreement or plea entered pursuant thereto, with prosecuting attorney involving immunity from prosecution for crimes. 43 ALR3d 281. .
Appeal from Oakland, Robert L. Templin, J.
Submitted February 7, 1977, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 29057.)
Decided March 31, 1977.
Paul W. Davis, Jr., was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of receiving and concealing stolen property in excess of $100. Defendant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw plea denied. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, L. Brooks Patterson, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert C Williams, Chief Appellate Counsel, and James L. McCarthy, Assistant Appellate Counsel, for the people.
Myron F. Poe, for defendant.
Before: D. E. Holbrook, P. J., and R. B. Burns and M. F. Cavanagh, JJ.

Opinion:
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
On May 3, 1976, defendant Paul Willis Davis, Jr., pled guilty to the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property of value in excess of $100, MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. In return for defendant's plea, the prosecutor recommended a sentence of 30 days in the county jail, to be served on weekends. Both the record of the plea-taking procedure and the plea form signed by the defendant explicitly show that the prosecutor's consideration was merely a recommendation. The trial judge expressly stated that he was not bound by the prosecutor's recommendation. Upon review of the pre-sentence report, the trial court decided that the prosecutor's recommendation was inappropriate, and sentenced the defendant to a three to five year prison term. Defendant appeals of right from trial court denial of his post-sentence motion for withdrawal of plea.
Defendant asserts on appeal that prior to his plea he was misled to believe that he would be sentenced to the prosecutor's recommendation; since his sentence in fact greatly exceeded that recommendation, his plea bargain went unfulfilled. While we can understand that defendant may have been surprised at the disparity between the recommendation and the actual sentence, defendant has nowhere established on the record that he was in fact misled. Indeed, the opposite appears to be the case. Defendant correctly argues that the courts will not allow a plea bargain to go unfulfilled, People v Hall, 399 Mich 288; 249 NW2d 62 (1976), People v Brooks, 396 Mich 118; 240 NW2d 1 (1976), In re Valle, 364 Mich 471; 110 NW2d 673 (1961). It is equally clear that a factual record must support speculative allegations that a promise remains unfulfilled. People v Hall, supra. There is no such record here.
Nor can we discern any support in the record for defendant's allegation that the prosecutor withdrew his sentence recommendation prior to sentencing. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow withdrawal of the plea.
Affirmed.
R. B. Burns, J., concurred.