PEOPLE OF MI V CARL WHITE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 3, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 198844
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-000772
CARL WHITE, a/k/a CARL SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Fitzgerald and M.G. Harrison*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In a bench trial, defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine under 25 grams, MCL
333.7403(2)(a)(v); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(a)(v). On being adjudicated a fourth offender MCL 769.12;
MSA 28.1084, he received an enhanced sentence of two to fifteen years’ imprisonment. On this
appeal of right, he contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel due to the
failure to challenge the imposition of an enhanced sentence, and that in any event he should not have
been sentenced as a fourth offender. We affirm; this appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Although defendant has failed to supply this Court with transcripts of the relevant proceedings,
the lower court record does contain a notation indicating that on May 10, 1996, defendant’s plea of
guilty to the original charge of possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine, §
7401(2)(a)(iv) of the Public Health Code, was withdrawn. Apparently, as part of a plea bargain the
prosecutor agreed not to pursue sentence enhancement in exchange for defendant’s guilty plea, but
defendant’s withdrawal of his plea terminated any such bargain. There is no actual order of dismissal
regarding the notice of intent to seek enhanced sentence anywhere in the lower court record. As that
notice was timely filed, there is no cognizable legal basis on which defendant’s trial counsel could have
sought dismissal of the prosecution’s effort to seek an enhanced sentence. MCL 769.13; MSA
28.1085.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Additionally, the prior convictions iterated in the notice of intent filed by the prosecution
correspond with defendant’s prior criminal record as detailed in the presentence report, the
-2
accuracy of which defendant never challenged. People v Lawrence, 206 Mich App 378, 380; 522
NW2d 654 (1994). Thus, the record fails to indicate that any grounds existed for either avoiding an
enhanced sentence entirely or limiting the degree of enhancement below that permitted for fourth
offenders. Defendant’s trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue objections
without substantive legal basis or realistic prospects of improving defendant’s legal position. People v
Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 327; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael G. Harrison
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.