People v. Good, Docket No. 78285

• Decision Date: 22 May 1985
• Docket Number: Docket No. 78285
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark William GOOD, Defendant-Appellant. 141 Mich.App. 351, 367 N.W.2d 863
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 863

367 N.W.2d 863

The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark William GOOD, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 78285.

141 Mich.App. 351, 367 N.W.2d 863

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 20, 1984.

Decided March 5, 1985.

Released for Publication May 22, 1985.

[141 MICHAPP 352] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Nick O. Holowka, Pros. Atty., for the People.

Richard D. Sullivan, Lapeer, for defendant-appellant.

Before J.H. GILLIS, P.J., and CYNAR and BOSMAN ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, convicted on his plea of guilty of breaking and entering an unoccupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny, M.C.L. Sec. 750.110; M.S.A. Sec. 28.305, was sentenced to a term of six to ten years imprisonment and appeals his sentence as a matter of right.

Defendant committed this offense while on furlough status from the Michigan Department of Corrections. His plea resulted from a plea bargain wherein the prosecuting attorney agreed to reduce the original charge of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling, a 15-year maximum offense to breaking and entering of an unoccupied dwelling, a 10-year maximum offense. Additionally, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss a supplemental information charging the defendant as a third felony offender, M.C.L. Sec. 769.11; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1083. The supplemental information would have had the effect, if conviction resulted, of doubling the maximum possible sentence.

Defendant assigns two claims of error to the [141 MICHAPP 353] sentencing procedure. Defendant first claims that the trial court failed to comply with the Michigan Supreme Court sentence guidelines requirement that requires the judge to specify reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines. The sentence range of the guidelines was 12 to 30 months, considerably less than the 72 to 120 months imposed by the judge. Defendant argues that the trial judge did not specify the reasons for the departure and, therefore, the case should be remanded for proper sentencing. This Court does not agree.

The sentencing guidelines contain a statement of purpose which in part reads as follows:

"Sentencing guidelines are intended to assist the sentencing judge charged with the very difficult duty of imposing sentence.

* * *

" * * * It is anticipated that there will be disagreements with the conclusions of the advisory committee. In such instances, the judge may wish to depart from the sentencing guideline ranges. Such departures are encouraged and, to improve the sentencing guidelines, when this occurs the judge is asked to specify the reasons for the departure."

Accompanying the guidelines manual is a multiple copy form entitled "Sentencing Information Report", which each circuit court and recorder's court judge is required to fill out when imposing a sentence for an offense that is included in the guidelines. Near the bottom of the form is an area entitled "Departure: (Above/Below) Please Specify Reasons:".

In filling out the sentencing information report in the area designated "Departure" the trial court stated "Subject on furlough from prison when crime committed. Also, offense reduced from 15 [141 MICHAPP 354] years to 10 years for plea bargaining purposes." Thus, the trial court did explain its reasoning for departure. A copy of this form was filed with the court record.

Section 27 of the sentencing guidelines manual, paragraph 3,...