Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v RAMON RASHAAD PERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED September 28, 2010

No. 292431 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 09-001898-FC

Before: TALBOT, P.J., and METER and DONOFRIO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his bench-trial conviction of armed robbery, MCL 750.529. Defendant was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to ten to 20 years' imprisonment. We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it refused to accept defendant's plea to unarmed robbery. A trial court's decision to refuse to accept a defendant's plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Grove, 455 Mich 439, 444, 460; 566 NW2d 547 (1997). There is no constitutional right to have a plea accepted. People v Bryant, 129 Mich App 574, 577; 342 NW2d 86 (1983). Defendant was charged with armed robbery after a pizza deliveryman was assaulted and robbed by two men outside of a townhouse where he had delivered pizza. At a pretrial conference, the prosecution indicated that it would not reduce the charge against defendant, but would agree to a sentence of six to 20 years' imprisonment if defendant agreed to plead guilty. The sentence would have been well below the range produced by the sentencing guidelines, given defendant's status as an habitual offender. Defendant did not want to accept the plea and maintained his innocence. He agreed to a bench trial. At a later pretrial hearing, the prosecution again offered a plea deal, under the terms of which defendant would plead guilty to unarmed robbery and would receive five to 15 years' imprisonment. Defendant was ambivalent. The trial court addressed defendant directly, warning him of the severe potential sentence associated with an armed robbery conviction, especially in light of defendant's habitual-offender status. After a brief recess, defense counsel indicated that defendant "would like to take advantage of the deal." The trial court advised defendant of his

-1-

rights. The court then attempted to ascertain the factual basis for the plea, and the following exchange took place: THE COURT: . . . . All right. Now, tell us what you did back on December 27th of 2008 that make [sic] you believe you committed the crime of unarmed robbery at 15015 Knoll Way in Romulus. What did you do? THE DEFENDANT: I was present on the scene first and foremost, your Honor. And I knew the guys that was gon' rob him was going to rob him. Planned to rob him and I bought his stuff from the guy. THE COURT: Okay. Say that again now. You were present when some guy robbed another guy? THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. Two people in my neighborhood told me that they was gon' rob Mr. Six. THE COURT: Okay. He was the pizza

Download PEOPLE OF MI V RAMON RASHAAD PERRY.pdf

Michigan Law