People v. Darrell
This text of 250 N.W.2d 751 (People v. Darrell) 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.
Opinions
Defendant appeals from an order of the circuit court revoking his probation and invoking sentence thereon.
It is defendant’s contention that he was not advised of certain minimal rights to be afforded him at a probation revocation hearing before he pled guilty to violation of probation.
The defendant was placed on two years probation by Judge John Wise after a plea-based conviction of attempted breaking and entering of an unoccupied dwelling on June 27, 1974. On April 16, 1975, defendant pled guilty and was convicted of a subsequent offense of attempted unarmed robbéry by Judge Joseph Rashid. On May 7, 1975, he was sentenced for attempted unarmed robbery. That same day he was brought before Judge Wise for a probation revocation hearing.
The defendant, was represented by counsel. The judge advised defendant that his probation had been cancelled. Thereupon, the following colloquy took place:
[712]*712"The Court: Do you want an attorney to represent you at this time?
"The Defendant: Yes, sir.
"The Court: How do you plead to the violation of your probation?
"The Defendant: Guilty.
"The Court: In what way did you violate your probation?
"The Defendant: Armed robbery.
"The Court: Robbery armed?
"The Court: And what did you plead guilty to?
"The Defendant: Attempted Unarmed Robbery.
"The Court: That’s a fifteen-year offense.
"The Defendant: Yes.
"The Court: Were you before Judge Rashid this morning on that?
"The Court: And you left the jurisdiction of the state and went to Wyoming, didn’t you?
"The Court: Is that where you were apprehended?
"The Court: And you were extradited and brought back?
"The Court: What was you[r] sentence?
"The Defendant: Four and a-half to fifteen.
"The Court: Well, evidently you did violate the probation order because you were convicted and sentenced already for an offense of Robbery Unarmed. So, I’m going to have to revoke your probation, there having been a violation of it.
"I have an up-to-date probation report, a supplemental report, by the Probation Department because they made one out for Judge Rashid for this morning’s sentence. With the probation report having been brought to date, I will sentence him right now.
"Mr. Howarth [Defendant’s attorney]: That will be fine, your Honor. I have read the probation report this [713]*713morning and I have gone over it with the Defendant and found it to be accurate.”
Three recent Michigan Court of Appeals cases have held that a probationer must be informed of his right to a hearing and that he waives that hearing by pleading guilty. People v Hardin, 70 Mich App 204; 245 NW2d 566 (1976), People v Allen, 71 Mich App 465; 248 NW2d 588 (1976), People v Brown, 72 Mich App 7; 248 NW2d 695 (1976).
A bench warrant was issued May 1, 1975, and served upon the defendant. It provided the defendant with notice of the charges against him, as well as stating as follows:
"Wherefore, YOUR PETITIONER PRAYS that a Bench Warrant be issued for the apprehension and detention of said probationer pending violation hearing by this court to determine whether or not said probation order shall be revoked.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The record clearly discloses that the notice served upon the defendant advised him of his right to a hearing. The record also reveals the defendant was advised of his right to counsel, and was in fact represented by counsel.
Prior to the revocation hearing the defendant had been sentenced for attempted unarmed robbery, one of the violation-of-probation charges. It does not appear that the defendant had any basis for, or intention of, contesting the charge. Moreover, his attorney was present to advise the defendant of any further procedural steps he may have wished to take.
Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the defendant’s due process procedural rights were adequately safeguarded within [714]*714the requirements of Hardin, supra, Allen, supra, and Brown, supra.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
250 N.W.2d 751, 72 Mich. App. 710, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 1136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-darrell-michctapp-1976.