People v. Grogg
Opinion
Defendant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering in the night time. OL 1948, § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.305). The crime was committed on September 15, 1963. On appeal he claims [407] that he was denied the assistance of counsel as he did not expressly waive his right to have counsel appointed for him.
During the arraignment the following colloquy took place:
“The Court: I must advise you that you are * * * entitled to he represented by a lawyer, if you want one, preferably one of your own choosing if you can retain one. On the other hand, if you wish a lawyer and cannot retain one, the court will appoint a lawyer for you upon a proper showing. Do you understand those rights?
“Defendant: Yes, sir.
“The Court: Bight to a lawyer and right to a jury trial. You also have a right to plead guilty or not guilty, as the case may he, to this charge. With that explanation of your rights, what do you wish to do?
“Defendant: I plead guilty.”
The above exchange is almost identical to the crucial portion of the arraignment in People v. Hobdy (1968), 380 Mich 686. In Hobdy the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of conviction entered on a plea of guilty by holding that Michigan and Federal authorities do not require that there he any express waiver of counsel.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
162 N.W.2d 900 (People v. Grogg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.