People v. Anderson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Anderson

218 N.W.2d 412, 53 Mich. App. 60, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 1104

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 1974

DocketDocket 16531

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 218 N.W.2d 412 (People v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Anderson, 218 N.W.2d 412, 53 Mich. App. 60, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 1104 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

R. B. Burns, P. J.

This case was originally assigned to Judge Allen for the preparation of the Court’s opinion. He has fully set forth the necessary facts and we agree with his opinion, except as to the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the question of the defendant’s competency upon his return from the forensic center.

In our opinion, once the question of competency is raised, the statute must be followed. A defendant who is incompetent could not intelligently waive or abandon such a hearing.

[62]*62Therefore, in accordance with People v Lucas, 47 Mich App 385; 209 NW2d 436 (1973), we remand the case to the trial court and direct a competency hearing to be conducted. If defendant is found to have been competent to stand trial at the time he pled guilty, his conviction is affirmed. Contrariwise, if defendant is found to have been incompetent to stand trial at the time he pled guilty, his conviction shall be set aside and a new trial granted. We do not retain jurisdiction.

O’Hara, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

R. B. Burns, P. J.

This case was originally assigned to Judge Allen for the preparation of the Court’s opinion. He has fully set forth the necessary facts and we agree with his opinion, except as to the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the question of the defendant’s competency upon his return from the forensic center.

In our opinion, once the question of competency is raised, the statute must be followed. A defendant who is incompetent could not intelligently waive or abandon such a hearing.

[62]*62Therefore, in accordance with People v Lucas, 47 Mich App 385; 209 NW2d 436 (1973), we remand the case to the trial court and direct a competency hearing to be conducted. If defendant is found to have been competent to stand trial at the time he pled guilty, his conviction is affirmed. Contrariwise, if defendant is found to have been incompetent to stand trial at the time he pled guilty, his conviction shall be set aside and a new trial granted. We do not retain jurisdiction.

O’Hara, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 N.W.2d 412, 53 Mich. App. 60, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anderson-michctapp-1974.

Opinions

R. B. Burns, P. J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack