PEOPLE OF MI V NAMAR WILEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Chief Justice:
Opinion
Justices:
Clifford W. Taylor
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
FILED MARCH 29, 2005
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 126221
NAMAR WILEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We hold that a sentence that exceeds the sentencing
guidelines satisfies the requirements of MCL 769.34(3) when
the record confirms that the sentence was imposed as part
of a valid plea agreement.
statute
does
additional
not
require
"substantial
sentencing court.
Under such circumstances, the
the
and
specific
compelling"
articulation
reasons
by
of
the
MCL 769.34(3); People v Babcock, 469
Mich 247, 256-258; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).
Furthermore, a defendant waives appellate review of a
sentence that exceeds the guidelines by understandingly and
voluntarily entering into a plea agreement to accept that
1
specific sentence.1
MCR 6.302.
In that respect, this case
is similar to People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276, 285; 505 NW2d
208 (1993), in which this Court stated that a defendant who
pleads guilty with knowledge of the sentence will not be
entitled to appellate relief on the basis that the sentence
is disproportionate.
See also People v Carter, 462 Mich
206, 215-216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).
We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In all other respects, defendant’s application for leave to
appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that this
Court should review the other questions presented.
Clifford W. Taylor
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
1
It is fully understandable under the circumstances of
a plea agreement why a defendant would waive appellate
review of such a sentence, because it is implicit in every
plea agreement that the defendant has derived some benefit
from the agreement, otherwise it would not have been
entered into.
However, there is no obligation upon the
sentencing court to identify the reasons underlying the
defendant’s acceptance of the plea agreement or to
inventory the specific benefits that the defendant might
have derived. Nevertheless, the court should complete the
Sentencing Information Report and determine the appropriate
guideline range, so that it is clear that the agreed-upon
sentence constitutes a departure.
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.
