State of Michigan v ROY CARL PALMERTON
Docket No. 140714
Court of Appeals of Michigan
200 Mich App 302; 503 NW2d 663
May 18, 1993, Submitted June 22, 1993, Decided
Prior case history: LC No. 90-5725-FH
Before: Murphy, P.J., and McDonald and W. R. Beasley, * JJ.
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
Opinion by: PER CURIAM
OPINION
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, third offense, MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325, and transporting an opened container of intoxicants in an automobile, MCL 436.34a; MSA 18.1005(1). 1 Defendant was released on bond and failed to appear for sentencing. The court sentenced defendant in absentia to three to five years in prison for the OUIL offense. When defendant was later brought before the court for sentencing on a probation violation for an unrelated offense, the court, in lieu of resentencing defendant on the earlier charges, stated that the sentence previously imposed in absentia would stand. Defendant appeals, contending that the court improperly sentenced him while absent.
1 MCL 436.34a; MSA 18.1005(1) has since been repealed by 1991 PA 98, effective January 1, 1992.
A defendant has a right to be present during the imposition of sentence, and at any stage of trial where substantial rights of the defendant might be adversely affected. People v Mallory, 421 Mich 229, 247; 365 NW2d 673 (1984). We are unaware of any decisions in this state resolving whether a defendant's failure to appear at sentencing constitutes a valid waiver of that right. This Court has held, however, that a defendant may waive his right to be present during trial by failing to appear. People v Williams, 196 Mich 404, 407; 493 NW2d 277 (1992); People v Woods, 172 Mich App 476, 479; 432 NW2d 736 (1988). A valid waiver arises when the defendant specifically knows of the right to be present and intentionally abandons the protection of that right. Williams, supra; Woods, supra. A valid waiver cannot be established from a silent record. Williams, supra; Woods, supra. Where there is nothing on the record explaining the defendant's failure to appear, a valid waiver cannot be established. Williams, supra.
Because a defendant has the same right to be present at sentencing as at trial, reasoning by analogy, the same criteria is necessary to establish a valid waiver of the right to be present for sentencing. In this case, there was no explanation on the record at the time of the original sentence with regard to whether defendant knew of the sentencing date and intentionally failed to appear for sentencing. The sentencing court therefore did not have adequate information at the time of sentencing to conclude that defendant's absence constituted a valid waiver of the right to be present at sentencing.
Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing.