People v. Lyles

• Decision Date: 07 July 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 77-393
• Citation: People v. Lyles, 257 N.W.2d 220, 76 Mich.App. 688 (Mich. App. 1977)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Allen LYLES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 220

257 N.W.2d 220

76 Mich.App. 688

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Arthur Allen LYLES, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 77-393.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

July 7, 1977.

Released for Publication Sept. 2, 1977.

James W. Lang, Flint, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros.Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WALSH, P. J., and QUINN and STAIR, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.M.C.L.A. § 750.227;M.S.A. § 28.424.Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement he entered a plea of guilty to a charge of the attempted carrying of a concealed weapon.M.C.L.A. § 750.92;M.S.A. § 28.287.He was sentenced to one year in the county jail and now appeals raising three issues for our consideration.

Defendant first contends that the guilty plea should be set aside because the plea agreement was not acknowledged on the record by the prosecutor, defendant, and defense counsel.GCR 1963, 785.7(2).We disagree.A review of the record reveals a number of references to the plea bargain agreement and sufficient acknowledgment of that agreement by all parties to satisfy the requirements of the rule.We find no reversible error.

Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to impose a minimum sentence in conformity with the Indeterminate Sentence Act, M.C.L.A. § 769.8;M.S.A. § 28.1080 as interpreted by People v. Tanner, 387 Mich. 683, 199 N.W.2d 202(1972).

M.C.L.A. § 769.28;M.S.A. § 28.1097(1) provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, in case of the commitment or sentence of any persons convicted of crime or contempt of court to imprisonment for a maximum of 1 year or less, such commitment or sentence shall be made to the county jail of the county in which such person was convicted or to the Detroit house of correction, and not to a state penal institution * * *."

It has previously been held that a jail sentence of one year for a misdemeanor is not subject to the Indeterminate Sentence Act.People v. Leonard, 51 Mich.App. 368, 370, 214 N.W.2d 888(1974).The rule should be no different for one year county jail sentences for felonies.We rule, therefore, that the Indeterminate Sentence Act is inapplicable to any jail sentence imposed pursuant to M.C.L.A. § 769.28;M.S.A. § 28.1097(1).

Finally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying credit for 77 days served in jail prior to sentencing.We agree.M.C.L.A. § 769.11b;M.S.A. § 28.1083(2) requires that credit be given for any time served in jail prior to sentencing because of being denied or unable to furnish bond.Leniency in sentencing does not satisfy this requirement.People v. Chattaway,18 Mich.App. 538, 541, 171 N.W.2d 801(1969).The statute is remedial and is to be liberally construed.People v. Clark, 43 Mich.App. 476, 486, 204 N.W.2d 332(1972).The prosecutor has cited no authority for his contention that credit was properly refused in this case.We know of no authority that could be cited.

Pursuant to GCR 1963, 820.1(7), it is ordered that defendant's sentence be and hereby is amended so as to credit defendant with the 77 days served prior to sentencing.

Affirmed as modified.

*...