Case Name: PEOPLE v. PHILLIP SMITH
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1979-06-06
Citations: 90 Mich. App. 572
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 77-1928, 77-1929
Parties: PEOPLE v PHILLIP SMITH
Judges: Before: D. C. Riley, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Beasley, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 90
Pages: 572–575

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v PHILLIP SMITH
Docket Nos. 77-1928, 77-1929.
Submitted March 21, 1979, at Detroit.
Decided June 6, 1979.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Phillip Smith, also known as Bobby Mack, was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of three separate counts of armed robbery, Recorder’s Court of Detroit, George W. Crockett, Jr., J. The defendant appeals. Held:
The defendant entered his pleas of guilty in return for the agreement of the prosecutor not to charge the defendant as a habitual offender. However, since the defendant had no prior conviction, he was not subject to being charged under the habitual offender statute. The bargain was, therefore, illusory.
Reversed.
M. J. Kelly, J., dissented. He would hold that the defendant entered his pleas of guilty as part of a bargain which reduced his multiple exposure to life maximum sentences to three concurrent sentences of 10 to 15 years and that any reference by the prosecutor to habitual proceedings was not part of any bargain.
He would affirm.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Multiple Offender — Habitual Offender — Felonies — Statutes.
A first felony conviction must predate the commission of a second felony in order for a defendant to be subject to a supplementary information under the multiple offender recidivist statutes (MCL 769.10 et seq.; MSA 28.1082 et seq.X
2. Criminal Law —■ Pleas of Guilty — Plea Bargains — Illusory Bargain — Recidivist Proceedings.
A defendant entering a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain was per se misinformed as to the benefit of his plea and the bargain was hence illusory where the plea was induced by a promise to forego a recidivist proceeding but no such proceeding was warranted.
References for Points in Headnotes
39 Am Jur 2d, Habitual Criminals and Subsequent Offenders § 6.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 485.
Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to criminal prosecution. 40 ALR2d 908.
Dissent by Kelly, J.
3. Criminal Law — Pleas op Guilty — Plea Bargains — Sentences.
A defendant’s pleas of guilty were not in response to an illusory bargain and his plea-based convictions should be affirmed where the plea bargain reached with the prosecution reduced the defendant’s multiple exposure to life maximum sentences to three concurrent sentences of 10 to 15 years and the defendant was sentenced accordingly; therefore, the defendant received the beneñt which he bargained for.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward R. Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Anne B. Wetherholt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Ruby & Ruby, P.C., for defendant on appeal.
Before: D. C. Riley, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Beasley, JJ.

Opinion:
D. C. Riley, P.J.
On February 11, 1977, defendant Phillip Smith, 15 years old, pled guilty to three separate counts of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, pursuant to the following plea bargain:
"The People also would promise that if Your Honor would sentence on sentencing date this defendant to a minimum term of ten years or more, we would not prosecute him as a Habitual. And that's a promise we made based on sentencing, so that's a conditional promise that we have made."
Defendant was sentenced to three concurrent terms of 10 to 15 years imprisonment, appeals two of the convictions by right, and alleges that, as he could not have been prosecuted as a habitual offender, his guilty pleas were involuntary due to the illusory nature of the prosecutor's bargain. Our careful review of the record persuades us to agree.
Under Michigan's multiple offender recidivist statutes, MCL 769.10 et seq.; MSA 28.1082 et seq., in order for a defendant to be subject to supplementation, the first felony conviction must predate the commission of the second felony. People v Roderick Johnson, 86 Mich App 77, 79; 272 NW2d 200 (1978). The record discloses that at the time defendant committed each offense to which he pled guilty, he had not been convicted of any previous felonies. Nor does the fact that each of defendant's present felonies to which he pled were committed at different points in time alleviate the infirmity. People v Roderick Johnson, supra, at 79-80.
As defendant's plea was induced by a promise to forego a recidivist proceeding where no such proceeding was warranted, defendant was per se misinformed as to the benefit of his plea and the bargain was hence illusory. People v Roderick Johnson, supra, at 79. See People v Lawson, 75 Mich App 726; 255 NW2d 748 (1977), Hammond v United States, 528 F2d 15 (CA 4, 1975).
Defendant's convictions are reversed.
Beasley, J., concurred.