From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pool

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 15, 1989
183 Mich. App. 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)

Summary

In Pool, the prosecutor sought to obtain specific performance of a sentence agreement one month after the court had sentenced contrary to the agreement.

Summary of this case from People v. Siebert

Opinion

Docket No. 109488.

Decided November 15, 1989.

State Appellate Defender (by Anne Yantus), for defendant on appeal.

Before: MAHER, P.J., and MARILYN KELLY and H.E. DEMING, JJ.

Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


Defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of larceny from a person, MCL 750.357; MSA 28.589. In exchange for the plea, the prosecutor dismissed the original unarmed robbery charge, MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798. The parties agreed to a sentence of three to ten years in prison.

The trial judge sentenced defendant to a prison term of 1 1/2 to 10 years. He noted that defendant's record was not that bad and that he had a good relationship with his family. The prosecutor did not object to the sentence. Neither party raised the subject of the sentence agreement.

About a month later, the prosecutor moved to vacate the sentence. He argued that it was a violation of the sentence agreement. The judge acknowledged that he had made a mistake. He vacated the original sentence and resentenced defendant to three to ten years. He denied defendant's subsequent motion to vacate the second sentence.

On appeal defendant argues that the trial court did not have authority to resentence him. We agree.

A trial court's authority to resentence a defendant is limited. It depends on whether the previously imposed sentence is invalid. People v Whalen, 412 Mich. 166, 169; 312 N.W.2d 638 (1981). We are unable to find any authority which holds that a sentence which does not follow the sentence agreement is invalid. Even where there is a sentence agreement, the trial court is not bound by it and must still exercise discretion when imposing sentence. People v Killebrew, 416 Mich. 189; 330 N.W.2d 834 (1982). Since defendant's original sentence was valid, the trial court did not have authority to resentence him.

Accordingly, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand for reinstatement of his original sentence of 1 1/2 to 10 years in prison.


Summaries of

People v. Pool

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 15, 1989
183 Mich. App. 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)

In Pool, the prosecutor sought to obtain specific performance of a sentence agreement one month after the court had sentenced contrary to the agreement.

Summary of this case from People v. Siebert

In Pool, the prosecutor did not mention the agreement at the time of sentencing, did not object to the sentence when imposed, and did not state an intention to rely on the agreement until one month after sentencing.

Summary of this case from People v. Siebert
Case details for

People v. Pool

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v POOL

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 15, 1989

Citations

183 Mich. App. 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
454 N.W.2d 121

Citing Cases

People v. Siebert

The Jefferson panel stated, Before Siebert, neither case law, court rule, nor practice would allow the…

People v. Wybrecht

On the contrary, it is well settled that information disclosed after sentencing cannot impeach the validity…