People v. Leonard

Decision Date17 January 1974
Docket NumberNo. 2,Docket No. 17908,2
CitationPeople v. Leonard, 214 N.W.2d 888, 51 Mich.App. 368 (Mich. App. 1974)
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David M. LEONARD, Defendant-Appellant
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan

Sheldon G. Larky, Leib & Leib, Southfield, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., L. Brooks Patterson, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and CAMPBELL,* JJ.

R. B. BURNS, Judge.

Defendant was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer in the discharge of his duty. M.C.L.A. § 750.479; M.S.A. § 28.747. He pleaded guilty to the added second count of attempted resisting arrest.

Defendant was sentenced to one year in the Oakland County Jail, less 87 days credit for time served awaiting sentence.

Defendant claims the trial court erred by not setting a minimum and maximum sentence in accordance with M.C.L.A. § 769.8; M.S.A. § 28.1080.

The statute which the defendant was originally charged with violating provided a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment.

M.C.L.A. § 750.92; M.S.A. § 28.287 sets forth the penalties for persons convicted of attempting to commit crimes, when no express provision is made by law for such punishment. The statute provides that imprisonment cannot exceed 1/2 of the time that could be imposed for the completed act.

Therefore, defendant's maximum confinement would be for one year.

M.C.L.A. § 769.28; M.S.A. § 28.1097(1), provides that the commitment of any person for a crime to imprisonment for a maximum of one year or less, should be made to the county jail of the county in which such person was convicted.

People v. Woods (Docket No. 14873, decided November 5, 1973 (unreported)), held that People v. Tanner, 387 Mich. 683, 199 N.W.2d 202 (1972), was not applicable to misdemeanor sentences to the county jail. We hold that M.C.L.A. § 769.8; M.S.A. § 28.1080 is not applicable to misdemeanor sentences to a county jail.

GCR 1963, 785.7(2) as amended, states in part:

'If the tendered plea is the result of an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant or his lawyer regarding the entry of a plea, the agreement shall be stated on the record and affirmatively acknowledged by the defendant, His lawyer and the prosecutor.' (Emphasis added.)

Defendant claims error was committed in accepting his guilty plea without obtaining the affirmative acknowledgment of both the prosecutor and the defense attorney that they had entered into an agreement with the defendant to have defendant enter such a plea.

The record shows that the defendant acknowledged the agreement between the parties, but the record does not show such acknowledgment by the prosecutor and defense counsel.

It should be noted that the court rule, as amended, became effective June 1, 1973, and the plea was taken June 4, 1973.

The case is remanded to the trial court to ascertain from the prosecutor and defense counsel whether or not the plea, as entered, correctly reflects the negotiated agreement between the parties.

J. H. GILLIS, Presiding Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part).

I concur in the majority...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • Kent County Prosecutor v. Kent County Sheriff
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • August 7, 1986
    ...county jail sentence for either a felony or misdemeanor. People v. Lyles, 76 Mich.App. 688, 257 N.W.2d 220 (1977); People v. Leonard, 51 Mich.App. 368, 214 N.W.2d 888 (1974). See also OAG, 1983-1984, No. 6131, p. 44 (February 16, 1983).11 It should not be assumed that the Legislature cannot......
  • People v. Spann
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan
    • March 25, 1975
    ...People v. Bratton, 46 Mich.App. 1, 3, 207 N.W.2d 437 (1973); the failure of the prosecutor to be present in court, People v. Leonard, 51 Mich.App. 368, 214 N.W.2d 888 (1974); the plea bargain not affirmatively acknowledged by the prosecutor, People v. Edwards, 58 Mich.App. 196, 227 N.W.2d 2......
  • People v. Hooks
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan
    • March 19, 1979
    ...imposed pursuant to M.C.L. § 769.28; M.S.A. § 28.1097(1). People v. Lyles, 76 Mich.App. 688, 257 N.W.2d 220 (1977); People v. Leonard, 51 Mich.App. 368, 214 N.W.2d 888 (1974), Lv. den. 391 Mich. 827 (1974). These cases would suggest that the act applies only to DeHoCo's role as a state pris......
  • Kent County Prosecutor v. Kent County Sheriff
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan
    • June 7, 1984
    ...Leadership.3 County jail sentences are determinate. People v. Lyles, 76 Mich.App. 688, 257 N.W.2d 220 (1977); People v. Leonard, 51 Mich.App. 368, 214 N.W.2d 888 (1974), lv. den. 391 Mich. 827 (1974).4 See M.C.L. Secs. 801.56-801.57; M.S.A. Secs. 28.1748(6), ...
  • Get Started for Free