PEOPLE OF MI V VINCENT EDWARD BRIDGES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 15, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 246785
Calhoun Circuit Court
LC No. 02-000188-FH
VINCENT EDWARD BRIDGES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Gage and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded guilty to charges in two cases of desertion and abandonment for
failing to pay child support, MCL 170.161. Following the trial court’s denial of defendant’s
motion to withdraw the plea, defendant was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent
terms of 46 months to 15 years in prison. Defendant appeals as of right from the judgment
entered in only this case, which pertains to the failure to pay support from September 30, 1991 to
November 2, 1999. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to
withdraw the plea. Under the plea agreement, the plea was taken under advisement and the
charges were to be dismissed if defendant paid the outstanding arrearages within one year.
However, approximately four months after he entered the plea, defendant was incarcerated due
to an assault charge. Defendant argues that this left him in the position of being required but
unable to pay, and that this was contrary to the interests of justice. MCR 6.310(B) provides that
the trial court may permit withdrawal of a plea before sentencing “in the interest of justice” if the
prosecutor would not be substantially prejudiced. The trial court concluded that it would not be
in the interest of justice to allow withdrawal of the plea where the plea itself made no provision
for any exception to its terms and the defendant’s circumstance was the product of his own
making. We find no abuse of discretion in this determination. See People v Harris, 224 Mich
App 130, 131; 568 NW2d 149 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-1-
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.
