People v. Clardy

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Clardy

343 N.W.2d 587, 130 Mich. App. 438

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 1983

DocketDocket 68091

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 343 N.W.2d 587 (People v. Clardy) 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. Clardy, 343 N.W.2d 587, 130 Mich. App. 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, and was sentenced to from 6 to 15 years imprisonment. Defendant presently appeals as of right.

Defendant argues on appeal that his conviction must be reversed because the trial judge did not explicitly state on the record that there was no agreement by the court as to the possibility of a [440]*440plea or the possible sentence. Although GCR 1963, 785.7(4)(b) requires the court to make such a statement, the Supreme Court has held that not every instance of noncompliance with the court rule will result in reversible error. Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 113; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). The error here does not warrant reversal. As in People v Love, 76 Mich App 379, 383; 256 NW2d 602 (1977):

"Since it is not claimed there was any plea bargain involving a sentence agreement which had been submitted to the judge for approval, it is immaterial that the judge did not state on the record that there was no agreement on his part. Moreover, the transcript shows the judge made clear to the defendant that he did not know how he would dispose of the case and would not know until after receipt of the presentence report.”

Defendant also argues that the trial judge should have informed him that the minimum sentence for armed robbery was one year and one day. This argument has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court in People v Blythe, 417 Mich 430; 339 NW2d 399 (1983). The phrase "for life or for any term of years” was held by the Court to refer only to the maximum sentence to be imposed and not to include any mandatory minimum sentence.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, and was sentenced to from 6 to 15 years imprisonment. Defendant presently appeals as of right.

Defendant argues on appeal that his conviction must be reversed because the trial judge did not explicitly state on the record that there was no agreement by the court as to the possibility of a [440]*440plea or the possible sentence. Although GCR 1963, 785.7(4)(b) requires the court to make such a statement, the Supreme Court has held that not every instance of noncompliance with the court rule will result in reversible error. Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 113; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). The error here does not warrant reversal. As in People v Love, 76 Mich App 379, 383; 256 NW2d 602 (1977):

"Since it is not claimed there was any plea bargain involving a sentence agreement which had been submitted to the judge for approval, it is immaterial that the judge did not state on the record that there was no agreement on his part. Moreover, the transcript shows the judge made clear to the defendant that he did not know how he would dispose of the case and would not know until after receipt of the presentence report.”

Defendant also argues that the trial judge should have informed him that the minimum sentence for armed robbery was one year and one day. This argument has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court in People v Blythe, 417 Mich 430; 339 NW2d 399 (1983). The phrase "for life or for any term of years” was held by the Court to refer only to the maximum sentence to be imposed and not to include any mandatory minimum sentence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 N.W.2d 587, 130 Mich. App. 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clardy-michctapp-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack