People v. Bentley

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Bentley

287 N.W.2d 355, 94 Mich. App. 19, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2495

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1979

DocketDocket 78-941

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 287 N.W.2d 355 (People v. Bentley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bentley, 287 N.W.2d 355, 94 Mich. App. 19, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2495 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to a charge of delivery of a controlled substance, contrary to MCL 335.341(l)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(l)(a), on December 14, 1977. On February 15, 1978, prior to being sentenced, defendant moved to withdraw her guilty plea, alleging that she was innocent and that at the time she pled guilty she was under great emotional stress. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals as of right.

[21]*21At the time defendant pled guilty, her mother was seriously ill in Florida. In her motion defendant stated that she was innocent of the charge to which she pled guilty but that she had been under considerable emotional stress due to the illness of her mother. It was her understanding at the time of the plea that if she pled guilty she would be permitted to leave the State of Michigan. A review of the guilty plea transcript tends to substantiate defendant’s claim. Before pleading guilty, defendant stated that the prosecution had promised that she would be allowed to leave the state. The prosecution qualified that by saying that, once the plea was taken, it would not oppose her leaving the state to visit a very sick parent if she could make bond. However, the prosecution also pointed out that this was not a part of the plea agreement. On this basis, defendant pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Immediately thereafter, the prosecution stated to the court that it was not opposed to defendant leaving the state. The court records in the instant case indicate that defendant was, in fact, permitted to leave the state. Upon her return, she filed the instant motion which forms the basis of this appeal.

In Michigan, a defendant’s withdrawal of her guilty plea is a matter of right when it occurs prior to the court’s acceptance. People v Serr, 73 Mich App 19; 250 NW2d 535 (1976). After the plea has been accepted, withdrawal is within the sound discretion of the court. Id However, such motions are to be treated with great liberality. People v Hatcher, 83 Mich App 307; 268 NW2d 389 (1978), People v Price, 85 Mich App 57; 270 NW2d 707 (1978). In this regard, our Supreme Court has said that where "* * * a defense of innocence is asserted at the time of a request to withdraw a plea, and the request is not obviously frivolous and is [22]*22made before the commencement of trial and before sentence, the plea [sic] should be granted”. People v Bencheck, 360 Mich 430, 433; 104 NW2d 191 (1960), People v Lewandowski, 394 Mich 529; 232 NW2d 173 (1975), People v Love, 72 Mich App 413; 250 NW2d 94 (1976), People v Hayes, 70 Mich App 580; 246 NW2d 154 (1976). Defendant’s claim in the instant case cannot be considered patently frivolous. See e.g., People v Hayes, supra. Moreover, she asserted her innocence and did so prior to sentencing. Hence, her motion for withdrawal falls squarely within the guidelines set out in Bencheck, supra.

The dissent argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in People v McClain, 402 Mich 824; 260 NW2d 287 (1977), rev’g 81 Mich App 84; 264 NW2d 1 (1977), precludes our decision today. However, we read McClain differently than does the dissent. In that case, this Court noted that a major reason for defendant’s decision to withdraw his plea was the identity of the sentencing court. People v McClain, 81 Mich App at 85. This is similar to the situation where defendant’s desire to withdraw his plea was motivated by the length of the sentence imposed which this Court has also rejected. People v Serr, supra.

Accordingly, the lower court’s decision is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to a charge of delivery of a controlled substance, contrary to MCL 335.341(l)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(l)(a), on December 14, 1977. On February 15, 1978, prior to being sentenced, defendant moved to withdraw her guilty plea, alleging that she was innocent and that at the time she pled guilty she was under great emotional stress. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals as of right.

[21]*21At the time defendant pled guilty, her mother was seriously ill in Florida. In her motion defendant stated that she was innocent of the charge to which she pled guilty but that she had been under considerable emotional stress due to the illness of her mother. It was her understanding at the time of the plea that if she pled guilty she would be permitted to leave the State of Michigan. A review of the guilty plea transcript tends to substantiate defendant’s claim. Before pleading guilty, defendant stated that the prosecution had promised that she would be allowed to leave the state. The prosecution qualified that by saying that, once the plea was taken, it would not oppose her leaving the state to visit a very sick parent if she could make bond. However, the prosecution also pointed out that this was not a part of the plea agreement. On this basis, defendant pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Immediately thereafter, the prosecution stated to the court that it was not opposed to defendant leaving the state. The court records in the instant case indicate that defendant was, in fact, permitted to leave the state. Upon her return, she filed the instant motion which forms the basis of this appeal.

In Michigan, a defendant’s withdrawal of her guilty plea is a matter of right when it occurs prior to the court’s acceptance. People v Serr, 73 Mich App 19; 250 NW2d 535 (1976). After the plea has been accepted, withdrawal is within the sound discretion of the court. Id However, such motions are to be treated with great liberality. People v Hatcher, 83 Mich App 307; 268 NW2d 389 (1978), People v Price, 85 Mich App 57; 270 NW2d 707 (1978). In this regard, our Supreme Court has said that where "* * * a defense of innocence is asserted at the time of a request to withdraw a plea, and the request is not obviously frivolous and is [22]*22made before the commencement of trial and before sentence, the plea [sic] should be granted”. People v Bencheck, 360 Mich 430, 433; 104 NW2d 191 (1960), People v Lewandowski, 394 Mich 529; 232 NW2d 173 (1975), People v Love, 72 Mich App 413; 250 NW2d 94 (1976), People v Hayes, 70 Mich App 580; 246 NW2d 154 (1976). Defendant’s claim in the instant case cannot be considered patently frivolous. See e.g., People v Hayes, supra. Moreover, she asserted her innocence and did so prior to sentencing. Hence, her motion for withdrawal falls squarely within the guidelines set out in Bencheck, supra.

The dissent argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in People v McClain, 402 Mich 824; 260 NW2d 287 (1977), rev’g 81 Mich App 84; 264 NW2d 1 (1977), precludes our decision today. However, we read McClain differently than does the dissent. In that case, this Court noted that a major reason for defendant’s decision to withdraw his plea was the identity of the sentencing court. People v McClain, 81 Mich App at 85. This is similar to the situation where defendant’s desire to withdraw his plea was motivated by the length of the sentence imposed which this Court has also rejected. People v Serr, supra.

Accordingly, the lower court’s decision is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 N.W.2d 355, 94 Mich. App. 19, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bentley-michctapp-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack