Case Name: PEOPLE v. JOSHWAY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1980-08-13
Citations: 99 Mich. App. 460
Docket Number: Docket No. 47874
Parties: PEOPLE v JOSHWAY
Judges: Before: Bashara, P.J., and D. C. Riley and E. A. Quinnell, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 99
Pages: 460–462

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v JOSHWAY
Docket No. 47874.
Submitted June 12, 1980, at Detroit.
Decided August 13, 1980.
Robert S. Joshway was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of armed robbery, Kalamazoo Circuit Court, Donald T. Anderson, J. Defendant appeals, alleging that the trial court’s denial of his motion to reconsider the sentence was an abuse of discretion. The defendant claimed that he was prejudiced because he was represented by different attorneys at the plea proceeding and at the sentencing. Held:
1. Defendant’s attorney at sentencing was properly allowed to review the presentence report.
2. Consideration of portions of the defendant’s past juvenile record by the sentencing judge was proper.
Affirmed.
1. Criminal Law — Sentencing — Presentence Report — Different Attorney at Trial and Sentencing — Court Rules.
A defendant’s attorney at the sentencing proceeding is to be granted access to and an opportunity to comment on the presentence report where the defendant is represented by different attorneys at trial and at sentencing (GCR 1963, 785.12).
2. Criminal Law — Sentencing — Juvenile Records.
It is permissible for a sentencing judge to consider portions of an adult defendant’s past juvenile record.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 583.5.
Defendant’s right to disclosure of presentence reports. 40 ALR3d 681.
[2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 585.
Consideration of accused’s juvenile court record in sentencing for offense committed as adult. 64 ALR3d 1291.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, James J. Gregart, Prosecuting Attorney, and Stephen M. Wheeler, Principal Appellate Attorney, for the people.
Dandert, Tucker & Basch, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Bashara, P.J., and D. C. Riley and E. A. Quinnell, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, and was sentenced to a term of 10 to 15 years.
The sole contention on appeal is that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying defendant's motion to reconsider sentence. Defendant claims that he was prejudiced because the attorney who represented him at the plea proceeding was not the same one representing him at sentencing.
Our review of the record reveals that the court carefully discussed the fact of substitute counsel with defendant. Defendant clearly indicated that he had no objection. The presentence report, which contained information on defendant's juvenile record, was reviewed by defendant's attorney at sentencing. This comported with what we view as the proper procedure under GCR 1963, 785.12, that a defendant's attorney at sentencing rather than merely his trial attorney, receive access to and have an opportunity to comment on the presentence report. See People v Grable, 56 Mich App 221, 222-223; 223 NW2d 656 (1974).
In his discussion with counsel, the trial judge explained that he would not take into account defendant's past juvenile record except as to those events which resulted in his entry into the Boy's Training School and the fact that defendant was in the custody of the Department of Social Services as a result of prior delinquent acts. Such consideration is permissible. People v McFarlin, 389 Mich 557; 208 NW2d 504 (1973). The trial judge did not abuse his considerable discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration of sentence. See People v Martin, 393 Mich 145; 224 NW2d 36 (1974).
Affirmed.