People v. Eric Thompson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Eric Thompson

300 N.W.2d 585, 101 Mich. App. 428, 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 3049

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 5, 1980

DocketDocket 47202

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 300 N.W.2d 585 (People v. Eric Thompson) 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. Eric Thompson, 300 N.W.2d 585, 101 Mich. App. 428, 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 3049 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to the offense of unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798. As a part of the plea agreement, the prosecutor agreed not to file a supplemental information charging defendant as an habitual offender.

On appeal, defendant claims that the bargain for his plea was an illusion because the people did not file a supplemental information at the same time that the original information was filed. He contends that under People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96; 282 NW2d 168 (1979), the people were foreclosed from filing a supplemental information and that, therefore, he did not receive any benefit from his plea bargain.

The facts in this case indicate that the defendant was originally charged with armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. In addition to the agreement that the prosecutor would not charge defendant as an habitual offender, the plea bargain in this case consisted of the following agreements: The original information was amended to unarmed robbery, to which charge the defendant [430]*430pled guilty; another armed robbery offense was amended to unarmed robbery and dismissed; and a charge of possession of marijuana was dismissed.

In our opinion defendant’s bargain was no illusion. Defendant may not have received as many benefits as he thought he would be receiving for his plea, but he did receive many benefits for the plea.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to the offense of unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798. As a part of the plea agreement, the prosecutor agreed not to file a supplemental information charging defendant as an habitual offender.

On appeal, defendant claims that the bargain for his plea was an illusion because the people did not file a supplemental information at the same time that the original information was filed. He contends that under People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96; 282 NW2d 168 (1979), the people were foreclosed from filing a supplemental information and that, therefore, he did not receive any benefit from his plea bargain.

The facts in this case indicate that the defendant was originally charged with armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. In addition to the agreement that the prosecutor would not charge defendant as an habitual offender, the plea bargain in this case consisted of the following agreements: The original information was amended to unarmed robbery, to which charge the defendant [430]*430pled guilty; another armed robbery offense was amended to unarmed robbery and dismissed; and a charge of possession of marijuana was dismissed.

In our opinion defendant’s bargain was no illusion. Defendant may not have received as many benefits as he thought he would be receiving for his plea, but he did receive many benefits for the plea.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 N.W.2d 585, 101 Mich. App. 428, 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 3049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eric-thompson-michctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack