PEOPLE OF MI V MARTEIZ RIVERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 26, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 203165
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 97-151518 FH
MARTEIZ RIVERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Jansen and Collins, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded guilty to malicious destruction of property over $100, MCL 750.377a;
MSA 28.609(1), and to being an habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084. He
was sentenced to 1½ to fifteen years’ imprisonment, and the trial court subsequently denied his motion to
withdraw his guilty pleas. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, his admissions at the plea proceeding established
an adequate factual basis for a malicious destruction of property plea, both as to his intent to damage or
destroy the property in question (a suit at a Gantos store) and the value of the property destroyed.
Defendant specifically stated that he damaged the clothing “willingly.” Although defendant would have
us use information in the presentence report to interpret his statements at the plea proceeding as
meaning only that he intended to steal the clothing and not to damage it, it is sufficient that an inculpatory
inference can reasonably be drawn from defendant’s statements, even though an innocent or
exculpatory inference might also be drawn. Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 130; 235 NW2d 132
(1975). Defendant also agreed that the value of the suit (and logically the value of a replacement suit as
well) was over $100. See CJI2d 32.1.
Defendant’s claim that his attorney led him to believe there was a sentence agreement for
“county jail time or less, and no prison time” is refuted by the record of the plea hearing. No mention of
such a sentence agreement was made at that time. To the contrary, the trial court stated, apparently on
the basis of a written plea agreement form, that there were “no plea bargains” except for a “Cobbs”
agreement to “stay within the guidelines” range of six to thirty months. This agreement was not only
-1
confirmed by defense counsel and the prosecuting attorney, but also by defendant himself, when he
acknowledged that he understood the court was being asked to consider imposing a “minimum
sentence” within the guidelines that “could be anywhere from six months” in “jail” or “up to thirty
months in prison.” Furthermore, defendant and his attorney indicated that there was “no other reason”
for defendant’s pleas than the agreement discussed on the record. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying defendant’s motion for plea withdrawal. People v Effinger, 212 Mich App 67,
71-72; 536 NW2d 809 (1995); People v Jackson, 203 Mich App 607, 612-613; 513 NW2d 206
(1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
-2
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.
