Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Namar WILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We hold that a sentence that exceeds the sentencing guidelines satisfies the requirements of M.C.L. § 769.34(3) when the record confirms that the sentence was imposed as part of a valid plea agreement. Under such circumstances, the statute does not require the specific articulation of additional “substantial and compelling” reasons by the sentencing court. M.C.L. § 769.34(3); People v. Babcock, 469 Mich. 247, 256-258, 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003).
Furthermore, a defendant waives appellate review of a sentence that exceeds the guidelines by understandingly and voluntarily entering into a plea agreement to accept that specific sentence.1 MCR 6.302. In that respect, this case is similar to People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276, 285, 505 N.W.2d 208 (1993), in which this Court stated that a defendant who pleads guilty with knowledge of the sentence will not be entitled to appellate relief on the basis that the sentence is disproportionate. See also People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 215-216, 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000).
We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. In all other respects, defendant's application for leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that this Court should review the other questions presented.
FOOTNOTES
1. It is fully understandable under the circumstances of a plea agreement why a defendant would waive appellate review of such a sentence, because it is implicit in every plea agreement that the defendant has derived some benefit from the agreement, otherwise it would not have been entered into. However, there is no obligation upon the sentencing court to identify the reasons underlying the defendant's acceptance of the plea agreement or to inventory the specific benefits that the defendant might have derived. Nevertheless, the court should complete the Sentencing Information Report and determine the appropriate guideline range, so that it is clear that the agreed-upon sentence constitutes a departure.
TAYLOR, C.J., MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, WEAVER, MARILYN J. KELLY, CORRIGAN, YOUNG and MARKMAN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Docket No. 126221.
Decided: March 29, 2005
Court: Supreme Court of Michigan.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)