People v. Lawson
| Decision Date | 17 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | 26680,Docket Nos. 26248 |
| Citation | 255 N.W.2d 748,75 Mich.App. 726 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles LAWSON, Defendant-Appellant. 75 Mich.App. 726, 255 N.W.2d 748 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[75 MICHAPP 727] Brignall, Devries & Lamb by Richard R. Lamb, Kalamazoo (26248), James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Detroit (26680), for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James J. Gregart, Pros. Atty. (26248), James D. Norlander, Pros. Atty. (26680), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MAHER, P. J., and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., and LETTS, * JJ.
Defendant appeals from two plea-based convictions, one from Kalamazoo County for breaking and entering, M.C.L.A. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305, and the other from Calhoun County for [75 MICHAPP 728] larceny over $100, M.C.L.A. § 750.356; M.S.A. § 28.588. An earlier order by the court consolidated the appeals.
On May 28, 1975, defendant pled guilty as charged to breaking and entering in the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court. On June 30, 1975, the court sentenced defendant to 6 to 15 years imprisonment. On the same day, after sentencing in Kalamazoo County, defendant pled guilty to larceny over $100 in the Calhoun County Circuit Court. The original charge against defendant in Calhoun County was larceny from a person, M.C.L.A. § 750.357; M.S.A. § 28.589. On August 28, 1975, the Calhoun County Circuit Court sentenced defendant to a concurrent term of 3 to 5 years.
Defendant claims that his plea to breaking and entering in Kalamazoo County was induced by a promise that the charge against him in Calhoun County would be dropped. This contention formed the basis of a motion to withdraw his plea in Kalamazoo County, filed after sentencing on July 29, 1975. The Kalamazoo County Circuit Court entered an order denying the motion on September 2, 1975. When representations that pending charges in another county will be dismissed lead a defendant to plead guilty and the charges are not dismissed, a withdrawal of the plea should be permitted. People v. Brooks, 396 Mich. 118, 240 N.W.2d 1 (1976), People v. Grochowski, 28 Mich.App. 558, 184 N.W.2d 574 (1970).
In Brooks, supra, the Supreme Court had before it, on the record made at the plea taking, the representations made about the disposition of charges in another county. On the record made when defendant Lawson pled to the breaking and entering charge in the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court, no mention of charges pending in another [75 MICHAPP 729] county appears. This Court remanded the matter to the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if any representations were made to defendant regarding disposition of the Calhoun County charge of larceny. After an extensive hearing, at which all of the attorneys who represented defendant in Kalamazoo and Calhoun Counties testified, the trial court found that defendant "did not plead guilty in Kalamazoo County under the understanding or misunderstanding that there would be a plea bargain agreement and they would dismiss the case in Calhoun County". This finding, which is not clearly erroneous, prevents this Court from holding that the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court abused its discretion in denying defendant's post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea to breaking and entering, GCR 1963, 517.1. People v. Byrd, 12 Mich.App. 186, 162 N.W.2d 777 (1968). Defendant's other allegation of error regarding his conviction for breaking and entering lacks merit. Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich. 96, 122-123, 235 N.W.2d 132 (1975).
Defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty to larceny over $100 entered in the Calhoun County Circuit Court. At the plea taking in Calhoun County, defendant's counsel informed the court that the plea agreement, in addition to allowing a plea to larceny over $100 in exchange for the dismissal of the charge of larceny from a person, included the prosecutor's promise not to request consecutive sentences. The prosecutor and defendant confirmed the court's restatement of the agreement. The possibility that defendant could be subject to consecutive terms for the crimes in Kalamazoo County and Calhoun County did not exist. The purse snatching in Calhoun County happened on October 14, 1974, and the breaking [75...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dillard
...defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea as not having been understandingly and voluntarily made.”); People v. Lawson, 75 Mich.App. 726, 255 N.W.2d 748, 750 (1977) (“Since defendant surrendered his right to trial in apparent misapprehension of the value of commitments made to him, ......
-
Davis v. State, PS
...be warranted, the defendant is per se misinformed as to the benefit of his plea and the bargain is illusory. See, People v. Lawson, 75 Mich.App. 726, 255 N.W.2d 748 (1977), Hammond v. United States, 528 F.2d 15 (CA4, People v. (Roderick) Johnson, 86 Mich.App. 77, 79, 272 N.W.2d 200, 201 (19......
-
People v. Coyle
...lost the benefit of concurrent sentencing, which is required absent explicit statutory authority to the contrary, People v. Lawson, 75 Mich.App. 726, 730, 255 N.W.2d 748 (1977)." 88 Mich.App. 435, 441, 276 N.W.2d Under Face, defendant is entitled to credit at least from the time the hold wa......
-
People v. Peete
...with the prosecutor, voluntariness depends upon the defendant's knowledge of the actual value of the bargain. People v. Lawson, 75 Mich.App. 726, 255 N.W.2d 748 (1977), People v. Huizar, 89 Mich.App. 224, 280 N.W.2d 494 (1979). Where the benefits of the bargain are grossly exaggerated, the ......