PEOPLE OF MI V STEVEN JOHN HARRIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 22, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 235175
Berrien Circuit Court
LC No. 99-411139-FC
STEVEN JOHN HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Markey and Owens, JJ.
METER, P.J. (concurring).
I concur in the majority’s disposition. I write separately, however, to emphasize that the
parties have agreed on appeal that the plea agreement will stand.1 Accordingly, the principle of
finality is observed. See People v Bulger, 462 Mich 495, 516; 614 NW2d 103 (2000) (state has
fundamental interest in finality of guilty pleas).
If the parties had not agreed to uphold the guilty plea, I might hesitate to remand this case
for trial, given the fundamental interest in the finality of guilty pleas. I might be prepared to
conclude instead that because defendant got what he bargained for (i.e., a minimum sentence
below or equal to 135 months), he is not entitled to appellate relief. In my view, the fact that the
legislative sentencing guidelines carry the force and effect of law does not necessarily “trump”
the ability of the parties to agree to a range of time for minimum sentence purposes,
notwithstanding any applicable guidelines. See, e.g., United States v Nagi, 947 F2d 211, 213214 (CA 6, 1991), Nagi v United States, 90 F3d 130, 134-136 (CA 6, 1996), and United States v
Kuhl, 816 F Supp 623, 628-629 (SD Ca, 1993).
Nevertheless, because defendant is not asking to vacate his plea and the principle of
finality thus is observed, I do not believe that this case is the appropriate vehicle with which to
explore whether plea agreements can take precedence over the sentencing guidelines. I therefore
concur with the majority’s disposition. With guilt established, the trial court is free to impose on
1
Under the plea agreement, defendant could not withdraw his plea unless the guidelines were
incorrectly scored and the trial court exceeded 135 months on the minimum sentence.
Withdrawal from the plea agreement thus was not appropriate here, because the judge imposed a
minimum sentence of 110 months. At any rate, the parties have agreed that the plea shall stand.
-1-
remand the sentence it deems appropriate, including a properly-articulated departure from the
applicable sentencing guidelines.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
