Court Opinion

ID: 9738689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:00:54.233591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:07.929379
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(concurring in result only). Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I feel compelled to comment further on People v Earl Jones, 94 Mich App 232; 288 NW2d 385 (1979), lv den 409 Mich 854 (1980). Defendant Jones had been charged in a three-count information: count I, first-degree murder; count II, assault with intent to commit murder; and count III, possession of a *376firearm at the time of the commission of a felony. The plea bargain in that case involved dismissal of counts I, II, and III in exchange for defendant’s plea of guilty to an added count of second-degree murder. On August 21, 1978, the date defendant tendered his plea, he was advised that he was pleading guilty to a felony with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. He was further advised that the prosecution would forbear from filing a habitual offender information and that by pleading guilty to second-degree murder defendant would be admitting to being in violation of the terms of his parole on a previous armed robbery conviction and could be punished therefor. Just prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the court stated:
"For this record, the court has not agreed upon the possibility of a plea, but as [sic] indicated to the defense counsel prior to this date that the possible sentence would be life imprisonment.”
Subsequently, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. It is my conviction that People v Earl Jones, supra, was correctly decided.