Court Opinion

ID: 9686935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:11:46.347871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:23.104686
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). In case No. 7608738, defendant was charged with five counts: two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, two counts of armed robbery and one count of unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle. He was bound over on all five counts. In case No. 7608751, defendant was charged with armed robbery with a starter pistol, and in case No. 7608766, he was charged with armed robbery with a sawed-*575off shotgun. The consideration for his guilty pleas appears to have been a sentence bargain reducing his multiple exposure to life maximum sentences to three concurrent sentences of 10 to 15 years. The trial judge well knew that defendant was not exposed to supplementation as a habitual offender. At the plea proceeding, the court asked:
"The Court: Have you ever been in a criminal court before?
"The Defendant: No, sir.
"The Court: Have you ever pleaded guilty to anything before?
"The Defendant: No, sir.”
At sentencing, the court summarized the bargain:
"Well, I see from this report that these three offenses are not the limit of your violations. You still have some cases pending over at Juvenile Court. Is that right?
"The Defendant: Yes, sir.
"The Court: One is carrying a concealed weapon. Another one is larceny from a building. And a third one is another charge of armed robbery. Is that right?
"The Defendant: Yes, sir.
"The Court: Prior to your plea in this case, I had some discussions with your lawyers, and I told them that unless I was persuaded otherwise after reading the probation report, I would be disposed to send you to Jackson for not less than ten and not more than fifteen years.”
I think the prosecutor’s reference to habitual offender proceedings was gratuitous and no part of any bargain. As such, I do not find the instant plea bargain illusory.
I would therefore affirm or, at the very most, remand for a hearing in the trial court as to whether the prosecutor’s agreement not to supplement the defendant was any material part of the consideration for the defendant’s pleas.