People v. Davis

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Davis

254 N.W.2d 335, 74 Mich. App. 624, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 767

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1977

DocketDocket 29057

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 254 N.W.2d 335 (People v. Davis) 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. Davis, 254 N.W.2d 335, 74 Mich. App. 624, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 767 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

M. F. Cavanagh, J.

On May 3, 1976, defendant Paul Willis Davis, Jr., pled guilty to the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property of value in excess of $100, MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. In return for defendant’s plea, the prosecutor recommended a sentence of 30 days in the county jail, to be served on weekends. Both the record of the plea-taking procedure and the plea form signed by the defendant explicitly show that the prosecutor’s consideration was merely a recommendation. The trial judge expressly stated that he was not bound by the prosecutor’s recommendation. Upon review of the pre-sentence report, the trial court decided that the prosecutor’s recommendation was inappropriate, and sentenced the defendant to a three to five year prison term. Defendant appeals of right from trial court denial of his post-sentence motion for withdrawal of plea.

Defendant asserts on appeal that prior to his plea he was misled to believe that he would be sentenced to the prosecutor’s recommendation; [626]*626since his sentence in fact greatly exceeded that recommendation, his plea bargain went unfulfilled. While we can understand that defendant may have been surprised at the disparity between the recommendation and the actual sentence, defendant has nowhere established on the record that he was in fact misled. Indeed, the opposite appears to be the case. Defendant correctly argues that the courts will not allow a plea bargain to go unfulfilled, People v Hall, 399 Mich 288; 249 NW2d 62 (1976), People v Brooks, 396 Mich 118; 240 NW2d 1 (1976), In re Valle, 364 Mich 471; 110 NW2d 673 (1961). It is equally clear that a factual record must support speculative allegations that a promise remains unfulfilled. People v Hall, supra. There is no such record here.

Nor can we discern any support in the record for defendant’s allegation that the prosecutor withdrew his sentence recommendation prior to sentencing. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow withdrawal of the plea.

Affirmed.

R. B. Burns, J., concurred.

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

M. F. Cavanagh, J.

On May 3, 1976, defendant Paul Willis Davis, Jr., pled guilty to the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property of value in excess of $100, MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. In return for defendant’s plea, the prosecutor recommended a sentence of 30 days in the county jail, to be served on weekends. Both the record of the plea-taking procedure and the plea form signed by the defendant explicitly show that the prosecutor’s consideration was merely a recommendation. The trial judge expressly stated that he was not bound by the prosecutor’s recommendation. Upon review of the pre-sentence report, the trial court decided that the prosecutor’s recommendation was inappropriate, and sentenced the defendant to a three to five year prison term. Defendant appeals of right from trial court denial of his post-sentence motion for withdrawal of plea.

Defendant asserts on appeal that prior to his plea he was misled to believe that he would be sentenced to the prosecutor’s recommendation; [626]*626since his sentence in fact greatly exceeded that recommendation, his plea bargain went unfulfilled. While we can understand that defendant may have been surprised at the disparity between the recommendation and the actual sentence, defendant has nowhere established on the record that he was in fact misled. Indeed, the opposite appears to be the case. Defendant correctly argues that the courts will not allow a plea bargain to go unfulfilled, People v Hall, 399 Mich 288; 249 NW2d 62 (1976), People v Brooks, 396 Mich 118; 240 NW2d 1 (1976), In re Valle, 364 Mich 471; 110 NW2d 673 (1961). It is equally clear that a factual record must support speculative allegations that a promise remains unfulfilled. People v Hall, supra. There is no such record here.

Nor can we discern any support in the record for defendant’s allegation that the prosecutor withdrew his sentence recommendation prior to sentencing. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow withdrawal of the plea.

Affirmed.

R. B. Burns, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 N.W.2d 335, 74 Mich. App. 624, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-davis-michctapp-1977.

Opinions

M. F. Cavanagh, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack