People v. Jefferson
| Decision Date | 06 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 142617 |
| Citation | 509 N.W.2d 776,202 Mich.App. 606 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellee. (On Remand) |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., and George E. Ward, Chief Asst. Prosecutor, for the People.
State Appellate Defender by Norris J. Thomas, Jr., Penny R. Beardslee, and Anne Yantus, for defendant-appellee on appeal.
Before DOCTOROFF, C.J., and MURPHY and MARK J. CAVANAGH, JJ.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty of delivery of between 225 and 650 grams of a mixture containing cocaine in violation of M.C.L. § 333.7401(2)(a)(ii); M.S.A. § 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(ii). Defendant was sentenced to five to thirty years in prison. The prosecution appeals from the judgment of sentence, contending that the sentence impermissibly falls below the term agreed upon by the parties under the sentence agreement. This Court issued an order of peremptory reversal, which was vacated by our Supreme Court with direction that we give the case plenary consideration. 437 Mich. 1034, 471 N.W.2d 557 (1991). We vacate defendant's sentence and remand for further proceedings.
Defendant was charged with delivery of 650 grams or more of a mixture containing cocaine, M.C.L. § 333.7401(2)(a)(i); M.S.A. § 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(i). Defendant entered into an agreement with the prosecution whereby she would plead guilty of delivery of over 225 but less than 650 grams of cocaine in exchange for her truthful testimony and cooperation in the prosecution of others involved in the trafficking of narcotics. The agreement provided that defendant would receive a sentence of ten to thirty years.
The trial court accepted the plea agreement and indicated that the court was aware of the sentence agreement. Before sentencing, defendant cooperated fully in accordance with the agreement, and the prosecution admits that defendant fully complied with the agreement. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to five to thirty years, a downward departure from the agreed-upon minimum, stating as the compelling reason defendant's extensive cooperation with the prosecution.
The prosecution contends that it is entitled either to the imposition of the agreed-upon sentence or to be permitted to withdraw from the agreement. We reluctantly agree, and do so only because we are required to follow People v. Siebert, 201 Mich.App. 402, 507 N.W.2d 211 (1993). Administrative Order No. 1990-6. In Siebert, this Court concluded that implicit in the decision of our Supreme Court in People v. Killebrew, 416 Mich. 189, 330 N.W.2d 834 (1982), is the assumption that the prosecution's right to have a sentence agreement enforced must be recognized in the interest of fairness and of protecting the prosecution's charging function. Siebert, supra, 201 Mich.App. at 408-412, 507 N.W.2d 211. Further, this Court in Siebert explicitly rejected the argument that the prosecution is barred from seekingreinstatement of the higher charges on the basis of the principles of double jeopardy. Id., at 424, 507 N.W.2d 211.
Absent this Court's decision in Siebert, however, we would be disinclined to agree with the prosecution. To allow the prosecution to withdraw from a plea agreement entered into with full knowledge by the prosecutor that the sentencing function is for the judiciary violates concepts articulated in Killebrew, supra, and more recently in People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276, 505 N.W.2d 208 (1993). Further, to do so in a fact situation such as this, where defendant has satisfied her part of the bargain by cooperating fully with the authorities at her own personal risk, is fundamentally unfair.
Judicial control of sentencing, empowered by the Legislature, M.C.L. § 769.1; M.S.A. § 28.1072, will effectively be delivered to the prosecutor, who will assuredly condition the sentence to be imposed on any negotiated guilty plea. Reliance on negotiated guilty pleas is commonplace in the administration of our criminal justice system, and an already overburdened judiciary will be encouraged to go along with the plea and sentence established by the prosecutor. The idea of a judge being the impartial dispenser of justice will thus be threatened, as will the concept of the sentencing function belonging to the judiciary.
Although equal treatment may suggest that allowing a prosecutor to withdraw from a sentence agreement unfulfilled is no different than the present process of allowing a defendant to do so, see Killebrew, supra, such an argument ignores the reality of the power and crime-charging authority of the prosecutor in the criminal law process, as well as constitutional considerations unique to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Siebert
...prosecutor's charging authority, the people must be given an opportunity to withdraw from the agreement. We affirm the Court of Appeals in Jefferson and would affirm in Siebert and Oatman insofar as these decisions held that a prosecutor may withdraw in this situation. Codefendants Raymond ......
-
People v. Jefferson, 142617
...630 446 Mich. 865 People v. Jefferson (Mary) NO. 98509. COA No. 142617. Supreme Court of Michigan August 03, 1994 Prior Report: 202 Mich.App. 606, 509 N.W.2d 776. Disposition: Leave to appeal We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court together with the cases of Peo......