Court Opinion

ID: 9741263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:30.83891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.188439
License: Public Domain

*655M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). The majority holds that the defendant’s guilty plea was understanding^ made, despite the trial court’s failure to apprise defendant of the Proposal B, MCL 791.233b; MSA 28.2303(3), consequences of his plea. I am unable to agree that the defendant could understandingly enter such a plea without knowledge that his minimum sentence was written in stone, unalterable by self-efforts at rehabilitation.
The facts of the present case indicate a defendant who, as a result of a prior incarceration, was aware of the "lifer law” by which a prisoner with a lengthy sentence could seek parole after ten years. Additionally, the defendant was provided a booklet entitled "Statement of Rights to Defendant” which could only have reinforced his expectations as to early parole. In pertinent part, the booklet stated:
"There are certain other crimes where if a Defendant is convicted of them, the Court must send him to prison. These are the more serious offenses of murder, armed robbery, treason and committing a felony with a gun.
"Usually, when a person is sent to prison he is released before he has served his entire sentence, but he is released on conditions that are called parole.”
In light of the mandatory sentence required for armed robbery and the minimum sentence consequences of Proposal B, the defendant herein was apparently misinformed as to the punishment he faced upon acceptance of his plea.1
Few would doubt the intent of the Supreme *656Court in promulgating GCR 1963, 785.7(l)(d), to inform a defendant of the minimum time in prison he may expect to serve. Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 119-120; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). In People v Mitchell, 102 Mich App 554; 302 NW2d 230 (1980), this Court applied the rule so interpreted to a case in which the sentencing judge misinformed the defendant as to the sentencing consequences of a subsequent felony-firearm conviction. MCL 750.227b(2); MSA 28.424(2X2). The Court held:
"The purpose of the mandatory sentencing rule is to apprise the defendant of the minimum time he will serve in prison so that his plea of guilty is given with full knowledge of the consequences. Guilty Plea Cases, supra, 118. We hold that, where consecutive and/or mandatory sentencing is ordered by statute, the defendant must be informed of that fact so that he has full knowledge of the true minimum time he will serve by pleading guilty. ” (Emphasis added.)
In this case, the defendant could not have been aware of "the true minimum time” he would serve unless told of the mandatory requirements imposed by Proposal B. I would reverse the defendant’s plea-based conviction and sentence and remand the case for trial._

 The people contend that defendant’s presentence report adequately informed the defendant of the Proposal B considerations in his case. The report states:
*656"NOTE: This offender is convicted of an offense included in Proposal B and accordingly, the minimum term shall not be diminished by allowances for good time, special good time, or special parole.”
The record made below, however, is inconclusive as to whether defendant was given an opportunity to review the report.