People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 26 December 1985
• Docket Number: Docket No. 81210
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 769

378 N.W.2d 769

145 Mich.App. 614

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 81210.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 9, 1985.

Decided Aug. 9, 1985.

Released for Publication Dec. 26, 1985.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., and Rosemary A. Gordon, Asst. Pros. Atty., for people.

Rose Mary C. Robinson, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.

Before HOOD, P.J., and V.J. BRENNAN and MAHER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree, M.C.L. Sec. 750.317; M.S.A. Sec. 28.549, and felony firearm, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2). Pursuant to a sentencing agreement, he was sentenced to from 7 1/2 to 15 years' imprisonment on the murder charge, plus 2 years' imprisonment on the felony-firearm charge. One count of murder in the first-degree and a second count of assault with intent to murder were dismissed in exchange for defendant's plea. Defendant appeals as of right.

Defendant first argues that resentencing is required because the trial court failed to articulate on the record its reasons for imposing the sentence recommended by the prosecutor. We find this argument to be without merit.

In People v. Coles, 417 Mich. 523, 549, 339 N.W.2d 440 (1983), the Supreme Court held that, in order to facilitate appellate review of the sentencing process, the trial court must articulate on the record its reasons for imposing the sentence given. In the case at bar, we find the record sufficient to afford appellate review.

Initially we note that defendant received a substantial bargain in exchange for his guilty pleas. As originally charged, defendant faced mandatory life imprisonment under the murder count, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and a possible life sentence under the count of assault with intent to murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.83; M.S.A. Sec. 28.278. Pursuant to the plea bargain arranged by defendant's retained counsel, defendant received a term of imprisonment of from 7 1/2 to 15 years for second-degree murder, plus the mandatory 2-year term of imprisonment for felony firearm.

The record reveals that the trial court reviewed the presentence report and indicated that based upon the information in the presentence report he would impose the sentence recommended by the prosecutor. We find no evidence of prejudice to the defendant. Therefore, we find a remand for resentencing under Coles unnecessary.

Defendant notes that the record is silent on the utilization of the sentencing guidelines, the use of which has been made mandatory by Michigan Supreme Court Administrative order No. 1984-1, 418 Mich. lxxx (1984). Defendant does not set this forth as ground for reversal, however, and understandably so: the sentence imposed is considerably less than the recommended guideline minimum and defendant can hardly claim prejudice.

No remand for resentencing is warranted under the circumstances in this case. See People v. Good, 141 Mich.App. 351, 367 N.W.2d 863 (1985).

Defendant next argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial because 13 months elapsed between the time of his arrest and his conviction.

Currently, there is a split in this Court concerning whether a plea of guilty waives this claim. Following federal authority this Court in People v. Parshay, 104 Mich.App. 411, 414, 304 N.W.2d 593 (1981), lv den. 411 Mich. 1081 (1981), held that a defendant's plea of guilty waives for purposes of appeal all nonjurisdictional defects in the court below including a claim of denial of the right to a speedy trial. In People v. Davis, 123 Mich.App. 553, 558-559, 332 N.W.2d 606 (1983), another panel of this Court reasoned that a speedy trial claim is a complete and therefore jurisdictional defense which is not waived by a guilty plea.

We are inclined to follow the Parshay Court but find that under either view, the defendant's argument is without merit.

In People v. Grimmett, 388 Mich. 590, 202 N.W.2d 278 (1972), the Michigan Supreme Court adopted the four factor test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), for evaluating a claim of deprivation of the right to a speedy trial. The factors to be considered are: (1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial below; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.

According to the record, defendant was arraigned on April 12, 1983, and pled guilty on May 15, 1984. All pretrial motions were completed as of September 14, 1983. On October 19, 1983, a final conference was held wherein May 14, 1984, was established as the trial date. On May 10, 1984, trial was delayed until May 15, 1984, because the court was in trial on another matter. Thus, the record establishes an approximate 13-month delay between the time defendant was arrested and his guilty plea.

Concerning...