People v. Berry
Decision Date | 24 November 1980 |
Docket Number | 63090,Nos. 62979,62980,63091 and 63164,s. 62979 |
Citation | 298 N.W.2d 434,409 Mich. 774 |
Parties | PEOPLE of The State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joyce BERRY, a/k/a Annette Williams, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE of The State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joyce BERRY, a/k/a Annette Williams, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of The State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward LONG, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, for plaintiff in both cases.
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Atty., Appeals, and Timothy C. Scallen, Asst. Pros. Atty., Lansing, for plaintiff in Berry.
James J. Gregart, Pros. Atty., and Judy A. Hughes, Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., Lansing, for plaintiff in Long.
Joyce A. Berry, in pro. per.
Robert E. Slameka, Detroit, for defendant Berry.
John A. Lydick, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant Long.
These cases have been consolidated for the purpose of making clear the nature of a criminal defendant's right of allocution before sentencing. The claim of each defendant arises from distinct trial court proceedings briefly set out below.
The defendant pleaded guilty on October 11, 1977 to separate charges of armed robbery, M.C.L. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797; assault with intent to rob while armed, M.C.L § 750.89; M.S.A. § 28.284; and two counts of possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, M.C.L § 750.227b; M.S.A. § 28.424(2). Pursuant to a plea bargain with the prosecuting attorney and a sentence bargain with the trial court, the defendant was sentenced to a total of not less than 7 nor more than 15 years in prison.
At sentencing, after stating that the sentence bargain called for imprisonment of 7 to 15 years, the Court said:
The court then recited at some length the defendant's history of previous convictions, sentences, and prison escapes, commented about her use of heroin, described her sociopathic personality, observed that she apparently lacked remorse for the crimes committed, and imposed the sentence agreed upon.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, M.C.L. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797, on December 1, 1976. After preparation of a presentence investigative report, a presentence conference occurred in the court's chambers involving the trial judge, counsel for the defendant, and an assistant prosecuting attorney.
No record was made of the conference in chambers. On December 27, 1976, the defendant was brought before the court and sentenced to confinement for a term of not less than 8 nor more than 20 years. The defendant complains that at sentencing he was denied his right of allocution and is entitled to be resentenced.
At the time of sentencing, the following occurred:
Both defendants complain that they were denied the right of allocution to which they are entitled under the provisions of GCR 785.8(2) and 785.9.
In relevant part, the court rule provides:
We find that in the cases of both defendant Long and defendant Berry the court did not comply with the requirements of GCR 785.8(2) and 785.9.
The rule requires that the record reflect that both the defendant and his counsel were given the opportunity to address the court before sentencing.
In defendant Long's case, the record at sentencing clearly discloses that the defendant was denied his right of allocution. The court's opening inquiry whether the defendant knew of any reason why "you should not be sentenced today" addressed the matter about which the court was concerned, but did not extend to the defendant an opportunity to address the court with respect to matters of concern to the defendant. Indeed, later in the colloquy, when the defendant spoke up on his own initiative to state that he preferred that no recommendation be made for psychiatric treatment, he was abruptly cut off by the trial court with the statement: 2
Nor should the nature of the right of allocution be viewed any differently in cases like defendant Berry's where a sentence bargain has been struck. Sentence bargain or no sentence bargain, the defendant must be given the opportunity to make a statement to the sentencing court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Coles
...407 Mich. 309, 284 N.W.2d 340 (1979); People v. Ensign (On Rehearing), 112 Mich.App. 286, 315 N.W.2d 570 (1982).16 People v. Berry, 409 Mich. 774, 298 N.W.2d 434 (1980).17 Const.1963, art. 6, Sec. 10.18 Const.1963, art. 6, Sec. 13; M.C.L. Sec. 600.601; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.601.19 M.C.L. Sec. 769......
-
People v. Wells
...the court before sentencing. Where the trial court fails to comply with this rule, resentencing is required. People v. Berry, 409 Mich. 774, 781, 298 N.W.2d 434 (1980); People v. Jones (On Rehearing), 201 Mich.App. 449, 453, 506 N.W.2d 542 Here, the trial court acknowledged that it had fail......
-
People v. Bingaman
...amounted to a denial of due process. Compliance with the provisions of GCR 1963, 785.8 is absolutely mandatory. See People v. Berry, 409 Mich. 774, 298 N.W.2d 434 (1980). Moreover, on this record, it cannot be said that there was no reasonable possibility of prejudice resulting from the fai......
-
People v. Price
...but the trial court did not ask defendant if he had anything to say or give defendant an opportunity to speak. In People v. Berry, 409 Mich. 774, 779, 298 N.W.2d 434 (1980), the Court said that GCR 1963, 785.8(2) and 785.9 require that both defendant and his or her counsel be given an oppor......