People v. Pool, Docket No. 109488
| Decision Date | 09 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 109488 |
| Citation | 183 Mich.App. 191,454 N.W.2d 121 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lamont POOL, Defendant-Appellant. 183 Mich.App. 191, 454 N.W.2d 121 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[183 MICHAPP 192] State Appellate Defender's Office (by Anne Yantus), for defendant-appellant.
Before MAHER, P.J., and MARILYN J. KELLY and DEMING, * JJ.
Defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of larceny from a person, M.C.L. Sec. 750.357; M.S.A. Sec. 28.589. In exchange for the plea, the prosecutor dismissed the original unarmed robbery charge, M.C.L. Sec. 750.530; M.S.A. Sec. 28.798. The parties agreed to a sentence of three to ten years in prison.
The trial judge sentenced defendant to a prison term of 1- 1/2 to 10 years. He noted that defendant's record was not that bad and that he had a good relationship with his family. The prosecutor did not object to the sentence. Neither party raised the subject of the sentence agreement.
About a month later, the prosecutor moved to vacate the sentence. He argued that it was a violation of the sentence agreement. The judge acknowledged that he had made a mistake. He vacated the original sentence and resentenced defendant to three to ten years. He denied defendant's subsequent motion to vacate the second sentence.
On appeal defendant argues that the trial court did not have authority to resentence him. We agree.
A trial court's authority to resentence a defendant is limited. It depends on whether the previously imposed sentence is invalid. People v. Whalen, 412 Mich. 166, 169, 312 N.W.2d 638 (1981). We are unable to find any authority which holds that a sentence which does not follow the sentence [183 MICHAPP 193] agreement is invalid. Even where there is a sentence agreement, the trial court is not bound by it and must still exercise discretion when imposing sentence. People v. Killebrew, 416 Mich. 189, 330 N.W.2d 834 (1982). Since defendant's original sentence was valid, the trial court did not have authority to resentence him.
Accordingly, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand for reinstatement of his original sentence of 1- 1/2 to 10 years in prison.
* Hudson E. Deming, former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Siebert
...on which the prosecutor may withdraw or as precluding withdrawal under these circumstances. A Defendants rely on People v. Pool, 183 Mich.App. 191, 454 N.W.2d 121 (1989), where a panel of this Court held that the trial court erred in resentencing the defendant in response to the prosecutor'......
-
People v. Wybrecht
...a sentence. See Whalen, supra; Fox, supra; People v. Pfeiffer, 207 Mich.App. 151, 155, 523 N.W.2d 640 (1994); People v. Pool, 183 Mich.App. 191, 192-193, 454 N.W.2d 121 (1989); People v. Bingaman, 144 Mich.App. 152, 158-159, 375 N.W.2d 370 (1984). In fact, the parties cannot contest the tri......
-
People v. Siebert
...the trial court is required to exercise discretion when imposing a sentence. People v. Killebrew, supra; People v. Pool, 183 Mich.App. 191, 193, 454 N.W.2d 121 (1989). "[T]he judge may not abdicate this function by allowing sentence agreements to control the sentencing process." People v. C......
-
People v. Jefferson
...Before Siebert, neither case law, court rule, nor practice would allow the procedure now condoned, and, in fact, People v. Pool, 183 Mich.App. 191, 454 N.W.2d 121 (1989), would have prohibited it. If working with a clean slate and if not bound by Administrative Order No. 1990-6, we would no......