People v. Vitale
| Decision Date | 20 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 110864 |
| Citation | 179 Mich.App. 420,446 N.W.2d 504 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony VITALE, Defendant-Appellant. 179 Mich.App. 420, 446 N.W.2d 504 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[179 MICHAPP 420] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Carl J. Marlinga, Pros. Atty., Robert John Berlin, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Edward L. Graham, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
[179 MICHAPP 421] William M. Wolfson, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before McDONALD, P.J., and SULLIVAN and NEFF, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right from his plea-based conviction for prison escape, M.C.L. Sec. 750.193; M.S.A. Sec. 28.390. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 1/2 to 5 years. That sentence was to run consecutively to the sentence that defendant was serving at the time of sentencing. We affirm.
Defendant first contends that the trial court committed error requiring resentencing when it failed to articulate on the record the reasons for defendant's sentence. Defendant pled guilty in exchange for the prosecutor's recommendation that the minimum prison term be no more than 2 1/2 years of imprisonment.
At the time of sentencing the prosecutor made the following statement on the record:
On January 29th this matter was up for trial. Defendant was charged with the offense of Escape from Prison. We arrived at a resolution. The resolution was that the Defendant was to plead to the principal charge of Escape from Prison, and the Prosecution was to recommend that in the event that the Court saw fit to incarcerate the Defendant, that we would cap the minimum sentence at two and [a] half years.
The trial court, after a discussion on the record with defendant, indicated that it would accept the sentence agreement between the prosecution and defendant, stating: "I'm going to go along with the cap." We find this to be a sufficient explanation of the sentence, given that a sentence bargain was [179 MICHAPP 422] entered and accepted. People v. Triplett, 432 Mich. 568, 442 N.W.2d 622 (1989).
The trial court accepted defendant's plea and sentenced him under a sentence recommendation to which he agreed. Why should defendant now be heard to complain? It seems pointless to remand such a case to the trial court. Here, where the prosecution and defendant agreed to the minimum sentence imposed, what are we to review and what are we to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hammond, Docket No. 107366
...by the argument that the defendant may not complain on appeal of receiving the benefit of his bargain. See People v. Vitale, 179 Mich.App. 420, 422, 446 N.W.2d 504 (1989). In this instance, however, the state never possessed a legitimate interest in securing defendant's conviction of the fi......
-
People v. Ward
...197 Mich.App. 111, 114, 495 N.W.2d 168 (1992). Further, the Blount decision was clearly foreshadowed by People v. Vitale, 179 Mich.App. 420, 422, 446 N.W.2d 504 (1989), where this Court The trial court accepted defendant's plea and sentenced him under a sentence recommendation to which he a......
-
People v. Blount
...previously had agreed and may not now challenge that sentence, because he has made no effort to withdraw his plea. People v. Vitale, 179 Mich.App. 420, 446 N.W.2d 504 (1989); see also People v. Nixten, 183 Mich.App. 95, 454 N.W.2d 160 (1990). A bargain is indeed a bargain. Further, in this ......