People v. Voss, Docket No. 69763
Decision Date | 04 May 1984 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 69763 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Joseph VOSS, Defendant-Appellant. 133 Mich.App. 73, 348 N.W.2d 37 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[133 MICHAPP 74] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. Foresman, Pros. Atty., and Leonard J. Malinowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Coulter, Cunningham, Davison & Read by Terrence J. Raven, Traverse City, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before R.B. BURNS, P.J., and V.J. BRENNAN and KALLMAN, * JJ.
Defendant, Timothy Joseph Voss, was originally charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b(1)(c); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(2)(1)(c). The information was amended to [133 MICHAPP 75] add one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520d(1)(b); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(4)(1)(b). A habitual offender supplemental information was also filed, M.C.L. Sec. 769.10; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1082. Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct and to the habitual offender charge. He was sentenced to a term of 10 to 22 1/2 years in prison and appeals as of right.
Defendant's first claim is that the trial court failed to comply with the mandates of GCR 1963, 785.7(1) and 785.7(2) because the trial court did not inform him of his constitutional rights before taking defendant's plea on the supplemental charge.
When a court accepts a defendant's plea of guilty to a habitual offender charge, the court must comply with GCR 1963, 785.7. People v. Brownridge, 414 Mich. 393, 397-398, 325 N.W.2d 125 (1982) ( ); People v. Bender, 124 Mich.App. 571, 576, 335 N.W.2d 85 (1983).
There is no dispute that, in association with the criminal sexual conduct charge, the trial court complied with the requirements of GCR 1963, 785.7 and fully informed defendant of his rights. After so doing, the prosecutor mentioned to the court that defendant should be advised that these rights apply to both the supplemental and the original charges. The court agreed.
After the factual basis for the original charge was established, the trial court informed defendant that:
The defendant replied affirmatively.
[133 MICHAPP 76] Defendant now claims that the trial court's statement was not sufficient to apprise him of his rights under GCR 1963, 785.7. We disagree.
In Bender, supra, while the jury was deliberating on the principal charges, defendant informed the court that he would plead guilty to the habitual offender charge if the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The Court stated:
"The fact that the recital of rights was made to the defendant hours before his formal plea was accepted would not constitute noncompliance with GCR 1963, 785.7 if the recital contained a sufficiently complete list of rights." 124 Mich.App. 577-578, 335 N.W.2d 85.
In the case at bar, we believe that the single full recital of rights to defendant and the court's statement to defendant that those rights applied to the supplemental charge constituted compliance with [133 MICHAPP 77] the mandates of Brownridge, supra. There was no error.
Defendant's second claim is that he was improperly charged under the habitual offender statute rather than under the provision in the criminal sexual conduct statute providing for sentence enhancement, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520f; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(6), which states:
Defendant failed to object to the supplemental charge before, or at, the plea proceedings. In People v. Hatch, 126 Mich.App. 399, 406, 337 N.W.2d 79 (1983), the Court applied the manifest injustice standard to review such an allegation of error in the absence of an objection.
"It is a rule of statutory construction that where two statutes are or appear to be in conflict, the specific statute, enacted subsequent to the more general statute, prevails." People v. McFadden, 73 Mich.App. 232, 235, 251 N.W.2d 297 (1977).
The habitual offender statute, M.C.L. Sec. 769.10; M.S.A. Sec. [133 MICHAPP 78] 28.1082, under which defendant was charged, allows sentence augmentation of the maximum prison term. The criminal sexual conduct statute only provides enhancement of the minimum term with a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. However, this statute is silent on enhancement of the maximum sentence. Therefore, we do not believe that the Legislature intended M.C.L. Sec. 750.520f; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(6) to be the exclusive statute governing enhancement of sentences when a defendant has a prior record of criminal sexual conduct convictions. In our...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Bewersdorf
...boundaries of the court's sentencing discretion. People v. Coffee, 151 Mich.App. 364, 372, 390 N.W.2d 721 (1986), People v. Voss, 133 Mich.App. 73, 348 N.W.2d 37 (1984). As Justice Levin observed in People v. Hendrick, 398 Mich. 410, 424, 247 N.W.2d 840 (1976), "the judge [is not] obliged, ......
-
People v. Tucker, Docket No. 110080
...offender enhancement was precluded. E.g., People v. VanderMel, 156 Mich.App. 231, 234-235, 401 N.W.2d 285 (1986); People v. Voss, 133 Mich.App. 73, 78, 348 N.W.2d 37 (1984). Two cases from other jurisdictions were found which applied this rule in situations similar to ours. Both cases found......
-
People v. Coffee, Docket No. 78212
...N.W.2d 1 (1980). The general habitual offender statutes allow sentence augmentation of the maximum prison term, People v. Voss, 133 Mich.App. 73, 77-78, 348 N.W.2d 37 (1984). Compare M.C.L. Sec. 750.520f; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(6) which enhances the minimum prison term for second or subsequent ......
-
People v. Terrell, Docket No. 69414
...the same judge on that same day in another case". Guilty Pleas Cases, 395 Mich. 96, 121-122, 235 N.W.2d 132 (1975); People v. Voss, 133 Mich.App. 73, 348 N.W.2d 37 (1984). This principle applies in the instant case where the advice was given at the arraignment portion of a single proceeding......