Court Opinion

ID: 9722367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:27:12.820458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:34.607118
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). This case is another example of the problems which may occur when a trial judge participates in the plea bargaining. In People v Mathis, 92 Mich App 670, 675; 285 NW2d 414 (1979), I expressed my concern about a trial court’s participation in plea bargaining when I stated:
"This Court favors a nonparticipatory, passive approach to the plea bargaining process on the part of the trial bench. The trial judge should be called upon in open court to approve the plea bargain reached by the adversaries, but should not be the instigator of, nor the conduit for, negotiations. A defendant’s right to trial is sacrosanct and his judge must be, and appear to be, impartial.”
I expressed similar apprehension in People v Bennett, 84 Mich App 408; 269 NW2d 618 (1978), lv den 405 Mich 835 (1979).
A sentencing judge may not take into consideration defendant’s refusal to plead guilty in determining the term of the sentence. People v Earegood, 383 Mich 82, 85; 173 NW2d 205 (1970), Mathis, supra, 672, People v Travis, 85 Mich App 297, 303; 271 NW2d 208 (1978).
In this case, the trial judge actively participated in the plea bargaining when he offered defendant a sentence of from 2-1/2 to 10 years if Rabb pled guilty. When defendant failed to plead, a trial was held during which defendant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit lar*437ceny. Rabb was later sentenced to from 6 to 10 years imprisonment by the same judge who offered a lesser sentence if Rabb pled guilty.
The judge in this case was familiar with defendant’s criminal record when he offered the lesser sentence during the plea bargaining. According to the judge, he had sentenced defendant on a prior occasion and knew of defendant’s problem. The testimony about the facts surrounding the crime presented at the preliminary examination and trial were essentially the same. Finally, nothing new was stated on the record to justify the increase in the sentence. Since there was nothing to justify the increase in sentence, I would remand this case for resentencing before another judge.