PEOPLE OF MI V DENNIS ALEXANDER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 12, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 280990
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 07-006069-01
DENNIS ALEXANDER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Meter, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (dissenting).
I conclude that the trial court plainly erred by failing to inform defendant of the right to
withdraw his guilty pleas. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Defendant was charged with several firearm-related offenses, and the prosecution filed a
notice of intent to seek enhancement of defendant’s sentences under the habitual offender
statutes. See MCL 769.13. Thereafter, the prosecution offered to dismiss one of the criminal
charges and the habitual-offender notice if defendant would plead guilty to possession of a
firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b, and possession of a
firearm by a felon (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f. Defendant received a Cobbs1
preliminary evaluation of two years in prison for the felony-firearm conviction, with no
additional prison time for the felon-in-possession conviction. Following defendant’s pleas,
defense counsel asked for reinstatement of the bond, stating that he had informed defendant that
his sentence could be harsher if defendant did not appear for sentencing. The trial court
reinstated the bond, but admonished defendant that if he did not appear, the court would consider
what he had done in the meantime at the time of sentencing.
Defendant did not appear for the original sentencing date. Instead, other people
presented a false death certificate bearing defendant’s name and other false documents to the trial
court. When defendant was ultimately apprehended and sentenced, the trial court sentenced him
to 1½ to 5 years in prison for the felon-in-possession conviction. The court did not inform
defendant of the right to withdraw his guilty pleas.
1
People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276; 505 NW2d 208 (1993).
-1-
The trial court apparently believed that defendant was involved in a fraud upon the court
by having false documents presented at the time of sentencing. Under these circumstances, I
agree that the court was not bound by the Cobbs preliminary evaluation. However, because the
trial court did not intend to follow the Cobbs evaluation, it was required to inform defendant that
he had the absolute right to withdraw his pleas. People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276, 283; 505 NW2d
208 (1993). I conclude that the trial court plainly erred by failing to explain this right to
defendant and by failing to give him the opportunity to withdraw his pleas. See People v
Killebrew, 416 Mich 189, 209-210; 330 NW2d 834 (1982). Defendant should have been given
the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas and to proceed to trial on the charges against him.
Accordingly, I would reverse.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.