People v. Edenburn
Decision Date | 07 June 1984 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 66371 |
Citation | 349 N.W.2d 151,133 Mich.App. 255 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie Verlin EDENBURN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Robert L. Kaczmarek, Pros. Atty., and Annette M. Gray, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender by Derrick A. Carter, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before ALLEN, P.J., and BEASLEY and CLEMENTS, * JJ.
Defendant, Leslie Verlin Edenburn, pled guilty to two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, in violation of M.C.L. Sec. 750.110; M.S.A. Sec. 28.305. Defendant was sentenced to not less than 5 years nor more than 15 years in prison. He appeals as of right.
Prior to sentencing, counsel for defendant addressed the court and claimed that the pre-sentence report of the probation department was in error. Defendant claimed that he was not given sufficient time to talk to the probation officer prior to the preparation and filing of the pre-sentence report. He claimed that some of the statements of the state police trooper were incorrect, specifically, that the reference to the breaking and enterings in Shiawassee County were not accurate and that defendant had, contrary to the report, made arrangements to take care of any delinquent child support.
The trial court responded to these claims as follows:
Defendant claims that under the case law, this response is insufficient because it does not indicate whether or not the trial judge relied on the statements in the pre-sentence report to which defendant objects. The prosecutor places a contrary interpretation upon the trial court's response, saying that the trial judge accepted the claims of inaccuracies and sentenced without regard to them.
We agree with defendant's interpretation of the case law. Michigan case law has consistently held that a sentencing court has a duty to respond to a defendant's allegations of inaccuracy in the information provided to the judge at sentencing, and that the judge's failure to do so is error mandating resentencing. 1
In People v. Major, 2 this Court interpreted GCR 1963,785.12 to mean that the trial court must exercise its discretion in determining whether allegations of error are correct and may consider statements of the attorney or defendant:
" "
The plea agreement in this case provided that the prosecutor's office would recommend dismissal of 13 other breaking and enterings charged to defendant in Saginaw County. The trial judge did not respond as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hoyt, Docket No. 107828
...v. Sutton, 158 Mich.App. 755, 405 N.W.2d 209 (1987), lv. den. 429 Mich. 871 (1987), with Tew, supra, and with People v. Edenburn, 133 Mich.App. 255, 349 N.W.2d 151 (1983), People v. Garvie, 148 Mich.App. 444, 384 N.W.2d 796 (1986), lv. den. 426 Mich. 851 (1986), and People v. Brooks, 169 Mi......
-
People v. Sutton
...A trial court has an affirmative duty to respond to allegations of inaccuracies in the presentence report. People v. Edenburn, 133 Mich.App. 255, 258, 349 N.W.2d 151 (1983). The following exchange took place at "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Also, your Honor, I would like to bring to your Honor's atte......
-
People v. Fleming
...through the means of the presentence report, is inaccurate, the judge has the duty to respond to that claim. See, People v. Edenburn, 133 Mich.App. 255, 349 N.W.2d 151 (1983), and cases cited In the present case, because the trial court did not articulate its reasons for departing from the ......
-
People v. Line
...Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); People v. Moore, 391 Mich. 426, 216 N.W.2d 770 (1974); People v. Edenburn, 133 Mich.App. 255, 349 N.W.2d 151 (1983). Instead, when defendant objected to the inclusion and consideration of those prior convictions because of their age......