PEOPLE OF MI V ANTONIO WOODS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED May 30, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 212867 Wayne Circuit Court Criminal Division LC No. 97-010522 ANTONIO WOODS, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Zahra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his sentence of two and one-half to five years in prison for his convictions of receiving or concealing stolen property over $100, MCL 750.535; MSA 28.803, transfer of a stolen motor vehicle with intent to pass title, MCL 257.254; MSA 9.1954, and habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084, entered after a bench trial. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Defendant was charged with receiving or concealing stolen property over $100, transfer of a stolen motor vehicle with intent to pass title, false pretenses over $100, MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415, and concealing or misrepresenting the identity of a motor vehicle with intent to mislead, MCL 750.415; MSA 28.647. In addition, defendant was subject to sentence enhancement as a fourth habitual offender. The trial court evaluated the case pursuant to People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276; 505 NW2d 208 (1993), and indicated that it would consider a sentence of one to twenty years if defendant pleaded guilty. Defendant rejected the plea offer, and the case proceeded to trial. In the course of a discussion of the rejected offer, the trial court observed that a number of factors went into its evaluation, including the fact that it had heard no testimony, and the fact that by pleading guilty, defendant would obviate the need for a trial. The court found defendant guilty of receiving or concealing stolen property over $100 and transfer of a stolen motor vehicle with intent to pass title, but acquitted him of false pretenses over $100 and concealing or misrepresenting the identity of a motor vehicle with intent to mislead. The court sentenced defendant as an habitual offender to two and one-half to five years in prison. -1­ Defendant argues that he was denied due process because the trial court increased his minimum term from one year to two and one-half years as punishment for his decision to exercise his right to a trial. We disagree and affirm defendant’s sentence. Although when imposing a sentence a trial court can consider a defendant’s waiver of his right to a trial, a court cannot increase a sentence as punishment for a defendant’s exercise of his right to a jury or bench trial. People v Godbold, 230 Mich App 508, 512, 516-517; 585 NW2d 13 (1998). The prospect of leniency if a right, such as the right to a trial, is waived, is not the equivalent of a penalty for the exercise of that right. Id., 517. In discussing the p offer and the Cobbs, supra, evaluation which defendant rejected, the trial court lea noted various factors which influenced the evaluation, one of which was the waiver of the right to a trial. Such a consideration is proper. Godbold, supra, 516-517. The trial court did not expressly or impliedly threaten to impose a harsher sentence if defendant exercised his right to a trial. Such a threat cannot be inferred from defendant’s expectation of leniency based on the trial court’s evaluation of the case at the pre-trial stage. Id., 517. The court’s sentence was based on information gleaned during the course of the trial and defendant’s prior record. No denial of due process occurred. Affirmed. /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ Brian K. Zahra -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.