People v. Sanders

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Sanders

316 N.W.2d 266, 112 Mich. App. 585

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 20, 1982

DocketDocket 55391

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 316 N.W.2d 266 (People v. Sanders) 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. Sanders, 316 N.W.2d 266, 112 Mich. App. 585 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of heroin, MCL 333.7403; MSA 14.15(7403), and possession of a firearm during the commission of that felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). In accordance with the plea and sentence bargain, defendant was sentenced to the mandatory two years on the felony-firearm count and from one to four years on the possession of heroin count, and the sentence on the possession of heroin count was suspended. At the time of sentencing, defendant wished to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the pleas and sentenced defendant according to the bargain.

The defendant appeals claiming that denial of the motion to withdraw the pleas was error. There is no right to withdraw a guilty plea once it is accepted. People v Bentley, 94 Mich App 19; 287 NW2d 355 (1979). However, such requests to withdraw a plea, when offered prior to sentencing, are to be treated with great liberality. People v Hale, 99 Mich App 177; 297 NW2d 609 (1980). In People [587]*587v Bencheck, 360 Mich 430, 433; 104 NW2d 191 (1960), the Supreme Court stated:

"Where, as here, a defense of innocence is asserted at the time of a request to withdraw the plea, and the request is not obviously frivolous and is made before commencement of trial and before sentence, the plea should be granted.”

The defendant in this case asserted his innocence and claimed he had a meritorious defense.

The critical issue herein is whether the request was obviously frivolous. To make this determination, we focus on the defendant’s "meritorious defense”. At the sentencing, defense counsel argued that he had two witnesses available who would testify that defendant did not possess a firearm at the time of his arrest. Therefore, he argued defendant could not be guilty of felony-firearm. Defense counsel stated that he was ready for trial at any time. The trial court, in passing on the motion, stated, "the grounds for the motion to withdraw, not having been more specific in the grounds, specific grounds outside of indicating that the defendant is not guilty, has a meritorious defense, is not sufficient for the Court to make a determination that the defendant should be granted a new trial”. The prosecutor and defense counsel, prior to the court’s proclamation, had properly stated the law in this area.

We conclude that the defendant’s claim of innocence is not obviously frivolous even though more specificity on the part of defense counsel in. presenting that claim was desirable. Defendants must be aware that once they have voluntarily pleaded to the possession of a firearm in the commission or attempt to commit a felony, a bald assertion of innocence seems obviously frivolous. The assertion [588]*588in this case was specific enough so that a trial court treating the request with great liberality should have granted the motion.

Reversed to allow defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of heroin, MCL 333.7403; MSA 14.15(7403), and possession of a firearm during the commission of that felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). In accordance with the plea and sentence bargain, defendant was sentenced to the mandatory two years on the felony-firearm count and from one to four years on the possession of heroin count, and the sentence on the possession of heroin count was suspended. At the time of sentencing, defendant wished to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the pleas and sentenced defendant according to the bargain.

The defendant appeals claiming that denial of the motion to withdraw the pleas was error. There is no right to withdraw a guilty plea once it is accepted. People v Bentley, 94 Mich App 19; 287 NW2d 355 (1979). However, such requests to withdraw a plea, when offered prior to sentencing, are to be treated with great liberality. People v Hale, 99 Mich App 177; 297 NW2d 609 (1980). In People [587]*587v Bencheck, 360 Mich 430, 433; 104 NW2d 191 (1960), the Supreme Court stated:

"Where, as here, a defense of innocence is asserted at the time of a request to withdraw the plea, and the request is not obviously frivolous and is made before commencement of trial and before sentence, the plea should be granted.”

The defendant in this case asserted his innocence and claimed he had a meritorious defense.

The critical issue herein is whether the request was obviously frivolous. To make this determination, we focus on the defendant’s "meritorious defense”. At the sentencing, defense counsel argued that he had two witnesses available who would testify that defendant did not possess a firearm at the time of his arrest. Therefore, he argued defendant could not be guilty of felony-firearm. Defense counsel stated that he was ready for trial at any time. The trial court, in passing on the motion, stated, "the grounds for the motion to withdraw, not having been more specific in the grounds, specific grounds outside of indicating that the defendant is not guilty, has a meritorious defense, is not sufficient for the Court to make a determination that the defendant should be granted a new trial”. The prosecutor and defense counsel, prior to the court’s proclamation, had properly stated the law in this area.

We conclude that the defendant’s claim of innocence is not obviously frivolous even though more specificity on the part of defense counsel in. presenting that claim was desirable. Defendants must be aware that once they have voluntarily pleaded to the possession of a firearm in the commission or attempt to commit a felony, a bald assertion of innocence seems obviously frivolous. The assertion [588]*588in this case was specific enough so that a trial court treating the request with great liberality should have granted the motion.

Reversed to allow defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 N.W.2d 266, 112 Mich. App. 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanders-michctapp-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack