PEOPLE OF MI V FRED LYNN GODSEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 21, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 218657
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 96-001617-FC
FRED LYNN GODSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Doctoroff and T. L. Ludington*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as on leave granted after remand from the Supreme Court his guilty plea
based conviction for armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. Defendant was sentenced as a
second offense habitual offender to 7½ to 25 years’ imprisonment. This appeal is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
After this Court denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court
remanded, limited to the question whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to
withdraw his guilty plea on grounds that the court violated People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276; 505 NW2d
208 (1993). Defendant asserts that he was coerced into accepting a plea agreement that provided for a
7½ year cap on the minimum sentence when the trial court indicated that it would be inclined to impose a
20 to 40 year sentence after trial.
Under Cobbs, supra, a judge may participate in limited sentencing discussions. To avoid the
potential for coercion, a judge must not state or imply alternative sentencing possibilities on the basis of
future procedural choices, such as the exercise of the defendant’s right to trial by jury or by the court.
Id., 283. While leniency may be bestowed for proffering a plea or accepting a bench trial, People v
Godbold, 230 Mich App 508; 585 NW2d 13 (1998), a judge’s statement of alternative sentencing
possibilities has an unacceptable potential for coercion. Cobbs, supra.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Although the court’s comments were off the record and no transcript is available, both the court
and the prosecutor acknowledged that the court participated in discussions concerning defendant’s
potential sentence if he were found guilty after a trial. Where defendant learned that the court would
impose a substantial sentence after trial, the comments had a potentially unduly coercive effect on
defendant’s exercise of his right to trial.
The trial court failed to comply with the limitations imposed by Cobbs, supra. Under these
circumstances, the court a
bused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.
People v Harris, 224 Mich App 130; 568 NW2d 149 (1997).
Reversed and remanded for trial. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
-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.
