PEOPLE OF MI V STEVEN ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 23, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V
No. 281133
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 06-007343-01
STEVEN ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Servitto, P.J., and Donofrio and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, and received a
sentence of 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence
by delayed leave granted. We affirm.
This case arises from the violent death of a 19-year-old man, whose body the police
found in a creek, showing severe head trauma. Defendant, who then was 15 years old, was
charged with first-degree murder in the matter, but agreed to plead guilty to second-degree
murder, and with that the sentence of twenty to forty year’s imprisonment, in order to avoid the
consequences of first-degree murder. At the plea proceeding, defendant admitted causing the
victim’s death by striking him repeatedly on the head, and that he then put the body in the creek
and fled the scene.
On appeal, defendant argues that he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel because
defense counsel did not contest the voluntariness of a statement defendant had offered to the
police, and did not attempt to negotiate for an amended charge that would have allowed for a
blended juvenile sentence. Defendant additionally argues that the prosecution abused its
discretion by failing to take such initiative on its own, and that the sentence was rendered invalid
by certain mitigating facts.
Plaintiff argues that defendant has waived his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
by pleading guilty. We agree.
Criminal defendants pleading guilty thereby waive their rights to “raise as error on appeal
the denial of a motion to suppress evidence . . . .” People v New, 427 Mich 482, 485; 398 NW2d
358 (1986). Instead, such defendants “may raise on appeal only those defenses and rights which
would preclude the state from obtaining a valid conviction against the defendant.” Id. at 491.
-1-
Our Supreme Court elaborated, “Such rights and defenses reach beyond the factual
determination of defendant’s guilt and implicate the very authority of the state to bring a
defendant to trial.” Id. (emphasis retained, internal quotations marks and citation omitted).1
Further, “‘[w]here the alleged deficient actions of defense counsel relate to issues that are waived
by a valid unconditional guilty plea, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel relating to
those actions is also waived.’” People v Scott, 275 Mich App 521, 525-526; 739 NW2d 702
(2007), quoting People v Vonins (After Remand), 203 Mich App 173, 176; 511 NW2d 706
(1993).
Likewise the challenge to the sentencing aspect of the plea agreement is also waived. In
this case, defendant expressly accepted his sentence of 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment as part of
the deal, and the trial court advised him that that sentence was indeed a firm part of the
“contract” which would spare him possible conviction of, and the sentence for, first-degree
murder. Further, the trial court indicated that the parties endured vexing negotiations to arrive at
that offer. The possibility that the prosecution might have been persuaded to proceed with
juvenile proceedings instead of a criminal trial, and thus bring to bear the sentencing options
attendant to juvenile adjudications, is without merit under the circumstances.
The prosecutor has wide discretion in deciding whether to try a juvenile charged with
murder as an adult. See MCL 764.1f; MCL 712A.2d(1); People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265,
282-283; 662 NW2d 836 (2003). A juvenile convicted of second-degree murder must be
sentenced as an adult. MCL 769.1(1)(h). The penalty for second-degree murder is life or any
term of years. MCL 750.317. Because defendant’s sentence was part of a plea bargain, and was
authorized by law, that sentence is unassailable on appeal. Thus, the claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel or abuse of prosecutorial discretion predicated on it also fail.
Because defendant’s plea-based conviction and sentence were legally valid, his plea
waived issues relating to evidence, his prospects for more lenient terms, the machinations of the
prosecutor, or defense counsel’s performance in connection with those things. See Scott, supra;
New, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
1
The exception is the “conditional plea of guilty, nolo contendere, guilty but mentally ill, or not
guilty by reason of insanity,” where a defendant, as part of the plea agreement, reserves the right
to appeal specified pretrial rulings. MCR 6.301(C)(2). See also New, supra at 490-491.
However, “The ruling or rulings as to which the defendant reserves the right to appeal must be
specified orally on the record or in a writing made a part of the record.” MCR 6.301(C)(2). No
such record exists in this case, and defendant does not suggest that there were any conditions.
-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.
