People v. Morgan

333 N.W.2d 163, 123 Mich. App. 27

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 8, 1983
• Docket: Docket 60012
• Status: Published

Opinions

Bronson, P.J.

Defendant pled guilty to charges of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (the armed robbery), MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). He appeals as of right.

Defendant’s armed robbery conviction must be reversed because the trial judge did not inform him that he could not be placed on probation if he pled guilty to that offense. People v Rogers, 412 Mich 669; 316 NW2d 701 (1982). The people cannot rely on our decision in People v Greene, 116 Mich App 205; 323 NW2d 337 (1982), rev’d 414 Mich 896; 323 NW2d 4 (1982), which was recently reversed by the Supreme Court.

The people’s argument that the decision in Rogers, supra, should not be given retroactive effect does not apply here. Trial courts have been required to comply with GCR 1963, 785.7(l)(f) since its adoption. In Rogers, the Court decided that reversal was the required remedy for violation of GCR 1963, 785.7(l)(f). Because the Supreme Court did not impose on trial courts a new rule of law but merely set forth a new remedial rule to be followed by appellate courts, our application of Rogers to this case is not retroactive.

We need not consider defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to inform him of a mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery.

Defendant, in general, requests that his conviction for felony-firearm, based on the armed robbery, be reversed. He has presented, and we see, no reason why his felony-firearm conviction should be reversed. That plea was properly taken in accordance with the court rules and there is no logical connection between its validity and the defect in the armed robbery plea.¹ The only plausible reason for reversing defendant’s felony-firearm conviction is to bring more pressure to bear on prosecutors and trial courts in order to secure compliance with the guilty plea rules. We believe that the remedies now in place are adequate for this purpose.

Defendant’s armed robbery conviction is reversed; his other convictions are affirmed.

Cynar, J., concurred.

1 This would not be true if the defect in the armed robbery plea was the failure properly to elicit a factual basis, where the factual basis was not separately set forth in the felony-firearm plea.