Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
May 5, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
130195 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
v SC: 130195
COA: 264429
Macomb CC: 02-001778-FC
QUINCY JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2005
order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of
granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the July 21, 2005 opinion and order of the
Macomb Circuit Court denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and/or for
resentencing, and REMAND this case to the Macomb Circuit Court for resentencing. If
the circuit court chooses not to follow the sentence recommendation agreed to by the
prosecutor, defendant will be allowed to withdraw from the plea agreement. MCR
6.302(C)(3).
We do not retain jurisdiction.
YOUNG, J., concurs and states as follows:
I concur in the order remanding this case to the Macomb Circuit Court for
resentencing because the plain language of MCR 6.302(C)(3) compels it. However, I
question the reasoning and analytical underpinnings of the court rule, which is a
codification of People v Killebrew, 416 Mich 189 (1982).
In this case, defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for a prosecutorial sentencing
recommendation. Defendant understood the recommendation to be a mere suggestion
and that the court retained full authority to impose defendant’s sentence without reliance
on the prosecutor’s recommendation. The prosecution fulfilled its end of the agreement,
recommending a sentence at the low end of the guidelines. However, because the
sentencing judge did not follow the nonbinding recommendation, our court rules mandate
2
that defendant be permitted to withdraw a voluntarily, knowingly, and willingly entered
guilty plea.
I cannot understand why a guilty plea given in exchange for a prosecutorial
sentencing recommendation is vitiated by the court's disinclination to follow the
recommendation. More important, I do not understand the rationale of Killebrew that a
defendant, having obtained the benefit of a bargain with the prosecutor, can withdraw his
plea when a court refuses to follow the recommendation. People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276
(1993), was decided after Killebrew and undermined the rationale underpinning
Killebrew. The principles that make withdrawal possible under similar circumstances in
a Cobbs plea, where the court is a party to the plea agreement, have no applicability in a
Killebrew plea. I welcome the opportunity to address the reasoning and rationale of the
Killebrew decision, and favor amending MCR 6.302(C)(3).
CORRIGAN, J., joins the statement of YOUNG, J.
WEAVER, J., would grant leave to appeal.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
May 5, 2006 _________________________________________
p0502 Clerk