Court Opinion

ID: 9692854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:08:59.079514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:37.456166
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(concurring). On the facts presented in this case, I concur with the result the majority has reached. However, I differ with the broad interpretation placed on People v Killebrew, *204416 Mich 189; 330 NW2d 834 (1982), by the majority.
Here, where the sentence imposed by the court was over three times as long as the sentence recommended by the prosecutor, the statement by the trial court prior to imposing sentence that "I am considering departing from that recommendation and imposing a more severe sentence” does not sufficiently comply with the requirements of People v Killebrew, supra. Defendant here would have been no worse off by withdrawing his plea and taking his chances at trial. Nevertheless, I cannot agree that, in a case where the trial court informs a defendant, whose sentence recommendation is twelve to twenty years, that it intends to impose a more severe sentence and offers defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea but defendant does not, the trial court violates the rule in Killebrew if it then exceeds the recommendation by imposing a sentence of say from fifteen to twenty-two years.
Under this hypothetical, defendant has been sufficiently informed of the consequences of his plea and of the sentence he would receive to conform with the requirements of Killebrew when defendant is informed that his sentence will be more severe than the recommendation and defendant is then given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. It is the size of the departure that underscores this sentence. Perhaps a better rule would permit a "reasonable” departure. If we can decide what is shocking to our conscience we ought to be able to quantify a "reasonable” departure.