People v. Wiley

693 N.W.2d 800, 472 Mich. 153
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 29, 2005
DocketDocket 126221
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 693 N.W.2d 800 (People v. Wiley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Wiley, 693 N.W.2d 800, 472 Mich. 153 (Mich. 2005).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We hold that a sentence that exceeds the sentencing guidelines satisfies the requirements of MCL 769.34(3) when the record confirms that the sentence was imposed as part of a valid plea agreement. Under such circumstances, the statute does not require the specific articulation of additional “substantial and compelling” reasons by the sentencing court. MCL 769.34(3); People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 256-258; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).

Furthermore, a defendant waives appellate review of a sentence that exceeds the guidelines by understandingly and voluntarily entering into a plea agreement to accept that specific sentence. 1 MCR 6.302. In that respect, this case is similar to People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276, 285; 505 NW2d 208 (1993), in which this Court stated that a defendant who pleads guilty with knowledge of the sentence will not be entitled to appellate relief on the basis that the sentence is disproportionate. See also People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215-216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).

*155 We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. In all other respects, defendant’s application for leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that this Court should review the other questions presented.

Taylor, C.J., and Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Corrigan, YOUNG, and MARIíMAN, JJ., concurred.
1

It is fully understandable under the circumstances of a plea agreement why a defendant would waive appellate review of such a sentence, because it is implicit in every plea agreement that the defendant has derived some benefit from the agreement, otherwise it would not have been entered into. However, there is no obligation upon the sentencing court to identify the reasons underlying the defendant’s acceptance of the plea agreement or to inventory the specific benefits that the defendant might have derived. Nevertheless, the court should complete the Sentencing Information Report and determine the appropriate guideline range, so that it is clear that the agreed-upon sentence constitutes a departure.

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

Related

People of Michigan v. Micah Henry Rickerd
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2024
People of Michigan v. Richard James Guichelaar
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2023
People of Michigan v. Christopher Lee Johnson
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2023
People of Michigan v. Craig Ivan Hill
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2022
Perron 527537 v. Schroeder
W.D. Michigan, 2022
People of Michigan v. Robert Earl Kennedy
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2020
People of Michigan v. Robert Cecil Burr II
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2019
People of Michigan v. Gary Gilmore
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2018
People v. Farris
909 N.W.2d 827 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2018)
People of Michigan v. Jacques Shanta Williams
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2018
People of Michigan v. Donquize Demar Dunbar
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2017
People of Michigan v. James Daniel Seadorf
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2017
People of Michigan v. James Francis Rapp
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2017
People of Michigan v. Charles Ray Jones
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2017
People of Michigan v. Brandon Allen Smith
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2017
People of Michigan v. Arthur Lee Sheard Jr
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2016
People of Michigan v. Kali Marie Heft
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
693 N.W.2d 800, 472 Mich. 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wiley-mich-2005.