Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Michigan

February 21, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRANDON ALLEN SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

         Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 14-008297-01-FC

          Before: Jansen, P.J., and Beckering and Gadola, JJ.

          Per Curiam.

         Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted[1] his guilty plea conviction of armed robbery, MCL 750.529. Defendant was sentenced to 126 to 240 months' imprisonment. We remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

         This case arises from defendant's decision to plead guilty to armed robbery pursuant to a Cobbs[2] agreement. Defendant was charged with armed robbery. On December 8, 2014, defendant appeared in the trial court and informed the court that he wished to plead guilty to the charged offense. The prosecutor indicated that the parties agreed that the sentencing guidelines range was 126 to 220[3] months' imprisonment, and that the prosecution would agree to a sentence within that range and would dismiss the third habitual offender sentence enhancement. Defense counsel indicated that the parties agreed to a guidelines range of 126 to 210 months' imprisonment and indicated that the prosecution did not object to a sentence at the "bottom" of the guidelines range. Defendant was sworn to tell the truth and was questioned concerning his understanding of the plea and sentence agreement. The following colloquy then occurred:

The Court: Um, now there's a sentence agreement that the prosecutor will move to withdraw the habitual third. In which the penalty is twice the maximum sentence.
And your sentence will be within the guidelines of 126 to 210 months and she does not have any objection towards you on being sentenced at the low end of the guidelines; is that your understanding[?]
[Defendant]: Yes.
The Court: And you are doing this freely and voluntarily?
[Defendant]: Yes. Defendant was advised of his rights and described the factual basis supporting his plea. On December 23, 2014, defendant appeared for sentencing. The following conversation occurred:
[Defense Counsel]: We'd indicate for the record, your Honor, that there was a plea agreement in this matter. That we did reach an agreement whereby the Prosecution allowed my client to plead guilty under the guidelines. And the guidelines are 126 to 201.[4]
We don't object to those guidelines. We do have an agreement that the Court would sentence the defendant at the low end of the guidelines. We're asking the Court to give him the minimum, the 126, as oppose[d] to anything in between.
* * *
[The Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I'm not aware of any stipulation to the low end of the guidelines. I just have that it is ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.