*1 App 51 Mich v LEONARD PEOPLE Opinion Court 1. Criminal Law —Sentences—Misdemeanor Sentences. statutory requirement
A that a trial court shall set a minimum is not and maximum sentence to misdemeanor sen- (MCLA769.8). county jail tences to a or less Guilty Bargaining 2. Criminal Law —Plea of —Plea —Acknowl- edgment. prosecutor An between a and a defendant or his lawyer regarding guilty of a that results in a guilty plea being tendered shall be stated on the record and affirmatively acknowledged by prosecutor; and where the record shows that the defendant acknowledged parties such an but does acknowledgment by prosecutor not show such an counsel, defense remand is made to the trial court to ascertain and defense counsel whether or not the negotiated agreement (GCR 1963, parties 785.7[2]). J. H.
Dissent
Guilty
Bargaining
3. Criminal Law —Plea of
—Plea
—Court
Rules.
The failure of the
and defendant or his counsel to
acknowledging
make an affirmative statement on the record
agreement regarding entry
guilty
only
is
1963, 785.7(2),
technical violation of GCR
and does not
a remand in a case where all
that all conditions
have been fulfilled.
References
for Points in Headnotes
2d,
540, 592,
21 Am Jur
Criminal Law
[1]
[2,
614.
§§
2d,
485, 493,
21 Am Jur
Criminal
3]
Law
494.
§§
Enforceability
plea agreement,
thereto,
pursuant
prosecuting attorney involving immunity
prosecution
with
for other
form
ALR3d
v Leonard
op
Opinion
the Court
Appeal
Oakland,
Kuhn,
D.
Richard
from
Sub-
Lansing.
December
at
Division 2
mitted
(Docket
17908.)
*2
January 17,
No.
Decided
appeal denied,
Frank Derengoski, General, Patterson, L. Brooks Solicitor Attorney, Prosecuting Williams, Robert C and people. Appellate Counsel, for the Chief appeal. Larky, on for defendant Sheldon G. J., R. Before: J. H. P. B. Burns and R. H. JJ. Campbell,* B. Defendant was arrested and R. Burns, assaulting police charged in the a officer with discharge duty. 750.479; MSA MCLA 28.747. pleaded guilty to second count of the added He attempted resisting arrest. year to one was sentenced County days Jail, for time 87 credit less
Oakland served awaiting sentence. by not court erred
Defendant claims the trial setting sentence minimum maximum a 769.8; 28.1080. MSA with MCLA accordance originally which the defendant was The statute provided charged violating a maximum sen- with imprisonment. years of two tence penal- 750.92; forth the MSA 28.287 sets MCLA attempting persons to commit for convicted ties express provision law is made no when provides punishment. that statute for such assignment. sitting Appeals by Circuit judge, on Court of * App 368 51 Mich Opinion of the Court imprisonment exceed 1/2 of cannot the time that imposed completed could be for act.
Therefore, maximum defendant’s confinement year. would be for one 28.1097(1), 769.28; provides
MCLA MSA for any person commitment of a to imprison- crime less, ment for a maximum should be jail made to the county county in which person such was convicted. (Docket
People v 14873, Woods No. decided No- 5, [unreported]), vember held v Tanner, 683; (1972), 387 Mich NW2d applicable to misdemeanor sentences to the county jail. 769.8; hold that MCLA We MSA 28.1080 is not to misdemeanor sen- tences to county jail. *3 785.7(2)
GCR.1963, amended, as states in part: "If the is the agreement tendered result of an the between and the or defendant his regarding plea, agreement the the shall be stated on the affirmatively acknowledged record and by ” his lawyer prosecutor. and the the (Empha- added.) sis claims error was committed in ac- cepting guilty plea obtaining without the affir- acknowledgment mative the prosecutor of both and the defense attorney had they agreement into an with the to defendant have defendant plea. enter such a
The record shows that the defendant acknowl- edged the parties, but the record does not show such acknowledgment by the prosecutor and defense counsel.
It should rule, be noted that the court as amended, became effective June 4,1973. was taken June People v Leonard Gilus, by J. H. P. J. Concurrence Partial to the trial court to ascer- remanded
The case is prosecutor and defense counsel from the tain as not whether par- negotiated ties. Campbell, J., concurred.
H.R. part, dissenting (concurring in H. opinion, except majority part). I concur necessity and, this remand case I to that therefore, see no granted. relief I dissent agreed to defendant kept. new court A technical violation and defense counsel rule wherein statement on the an affirmative did make opinion, my record, in does not a remand especially all the fact that in view of bargain been all have conditions fulfilled.