
    PEOPLE v DONALDSON
    Docket Nos. 45405, 45406.
    Submitted November 3, 1980, at Lansing.
    Decided December 16, 1980.
    Larry Donaldson, Jr., was convicted on his pleas of guilty of assault with intent to rob while armed and prison escape, Kent Circuit Court, George V. Boucher, J. Prior to the sentencing hearing, defense counsel and the trial judge held an in-chambers sentencing conference without the defendant being present. Defendant appeals, arguing that resentencing is mandated by reason of his absence from the sentencing conference. Held:
    
    An in-chambers sentencing conference held prior to the sentencing hearing is not a critical stage of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the absence of the defendant from such a conference does not mandate resentencing.
    Affirmed.
    Criminal Law — Sentencing — Sentencing Conference — Critical Stage.
    An in-chambers sentencing conference between defense counsel and the trial judge is not a critical stage of a criminal proceeding; accordingly, resentencing is not mandated by reason of a defendant’s absence from such a conference.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    [1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 289, 303.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, David H. Sawyer, Prosecuting Attorney, and Carol S. Irons, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
    
      George S. Buth, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: Danhof, C.J., and Bronson and Cynar, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

On March 1, 1979, defendant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of assault with intent to rob while armed, MCL 750.89; MSA 28.284, and prison escape, MCL 750.193; MSA 28.390. On April 4, 1979, he was sentenced to three years, four months to five years imprisonment on the escape conviction and 10 to 25 years imprisonment on the assault conviction, both to commence at the expiration of the term defendant was serving when he escaped. Defendant appeals as of right.

On appeal, defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing because he was excluded from an in-chambers conference between the court and defendant’s attorney prior to his sentencing hearing. Defendant claims that this exclusion deprived him of his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings.

We find no error. There is no requirement that a defendant be present during an in-chambers discussion with counsel regarding sentencing. People v Worden, 91 Mich App 666, 685; 284 NW2d 159 (1979), People v Dumas, 102 Mich App 196; 301 NW2d 849 (1980). See also People v Briggs, 94 Mich App 723, 727; 290 NW2d 66 (1980), lv gtd 408 Mich 958 (1980). We note that the Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave and ordered this issue to be briefed in People v Pulley, 407 Mich 946 (1979).

Aifirmed.  