PEOPLE OF MI V EDWARD HARRELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 243704
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-001330
EDWARD HARRELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cooper, P.J. and O’Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted from a circuit court order denying his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of less than fifty grams of cocaine with intent to
deliver, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and admitted his habitual offender status, MCL 769.10,
pursuant to a preliminary sentence evaluation of lifetime probation. He later sought to withdraw
his plea, asserting that the sentence of one to thirty years exceeded the evaluation. A
postjudgment motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion resulting in a
miscarriage of justice. People v Davidovich, 238 Mich App 422, 425; 606 NW2d 387 (1999),
aff’d 463 Mich 446 (2000).
At the request of a party, the court may state on the record the length of a sentence that
appears to be appropriate based on the information then before it. People v Cobbs, 443 Mich
276, 283; 505 NW2d 208 (1993). If the court later determines that the sentence is inappropriate,
the defendant has an absolute right to withdraw his plea. People v Everard, 225 Mich App 455,
458; 571 NW2d 536 (1997). Whether a defendant’s sentence exceeded the preliminary
evaluation is a question of fact that is reviewed for clear error. Id.
At the plea proceeding, the court gave a preliminary evaluation of lifetime probation.
When defendant appeared for sentencing, the court explained that it planned to impose a
concurrent prison sentence with a one-year minimum because such a sentence was more
beneficial to defendant than lifetime probation. Defendant said several times that he understood
and never objected to the sentence imposed. Moreover, when asked if there was anything
further, defense counsel said nothing about the sentence. Under the circumstances, defendant
cannot claim error. People v Tate, 244 Mich App 553, 558-559; 624 NW2d 524 (2001).
-1-
Although the trial court erroneously considered defendant’s motion under MCR 6.500 et seq.,
this Court will not reverse where the trial court reaches the right result for the wrong reason.
People v Lyon, 227 Mich App 599, 612-613; 577 NW2d 124 (1998).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
