People v. Peques

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Peques

304 N.W.2d 482, 104 Mich. App. 45, 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 3180

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 25, 1980

DocketDocket 78-279

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 304 N.W.2d 482 (People v. Peques) 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. Peques, 304 N.W.2d 482, 104 Mich. App. 45, 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 3180 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On November 10, 1977, defendant was convicted by a jury of delivery of heroin contrary to MCL 335.341; MSA 18.1070(41). Thereafter sentenced to 13 to 20 years imprisonment, he appeals by leave granted.

Judge Ravitz indicated in an in camera discussion with the attorneys that the defendant could anticipate the maximum sentence if convicted unless intelligence information was offered about other drug transactions. Defendant made a motion to disqualify Judge Ravitz and the judge denied it. The question was brought before another judge in the Recorder’s Court and it was again denied. We find no error in the denial of the defense motion tc disqualify. The record must show actual bias or prejudice before a conviction will be reversed on the ground that the trial judge should have disqualified himself. People v Elmore, 92 Mich App 678; 285 NW2d 417 (1979), People v Lobsinger, 64 Mich App 284; 235 NW2d 761 (1975). However, we do find that defendant is entitled to resentencing by a different judge. While there is a natural inclination to reward cooperation, there must be a reluctance to coerce it. It is a violation of Fifth Amendment rights for a judge to actively use the sentencing power to elicit information from a defendant. It is improper to punish a defendant for exercising his right to remain silent. This would include a situation where the defendant admits guilt but refuses to disclose details or criminal activities. People v Anderson, 391 Mich 419; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), People v Westerfield, 71 Mich App 618, 626; 248 NW2d 641 (1977).

*47 As to defendant’s remaining allegations of error, we find them to be without merit.

Affirmed. Remanded for resentencing before a different judge. We do not retain further jurisdiction.

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

Per Curiam.

On November 10, 1977, defendant was convicted by a jury of delivery of heroin contrary to MCL 335.341; MSA 18.1070(41). Thereafter sentenced to 13 to 20 years imprisonment, he appeals by leave granted.

Judge Ravitz indicated in an in camera discussion with the attorneys that the defendant could anticipate the maximum sentence if convicted unless intelligence information was offered about other drug transactions. Defendant made a motion to disqualify Judge Ravitz and the judge denied it. The question was brought before another judge in the Recorder’s Court and it was again denied. We find no error in the denial of the defense motion tc disqualify. The record must show actual bias or prejudice before a conviction will be reversed on the ground that the trial judge should have disqualified himself. People v Elmore, 92 Mich App 678; 285 NW2d 417 (1979), People v Lobsinger, 64 Mich App 284; 235 NW2d 761 (1975). However, we do find that defendant is entitled to resentencing by a different judge. While there is a natural inclination to reward cooperation, there must be a reluctance to coerce it. It is a violation of Fifth Amendment rights for a judge to actively use the sentencing power to elicit information from a defendant. It is improper to punish a defendant for exercising his right to remain silent. This would include a situation where the defendant admits guilt but refuses to disclose details or criminal activities. People v Anderson, 391 Mich 419; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), People v Westerfield, 71 Mich App 618, 626; 248 NW2d 641 (1977).

*47 As to defendant’s remaining allegations of error, we find them to be without merit.

Affirmed. Remanded for resentencing before a different judge. We do not retain further jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 N.W.2d 482, 104 Mich. App. 45, 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 3180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peques-michctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack