People v. Solomon

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Solomon

305 N.W.2d 295, 104 Mich. App. 695, 1981 Mich. App. LEXIS 2836

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 1981

DocketDocket 50110

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 305 N.W.2d 295 (People v. Solomon) 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. Solomon, 305 N.W.2d 295, 104 Mich. App. 695, 1981 Mich. App. LEXIS 2836 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

On. August 27, 1979, defendant

pled guilty as charged to breaking and entering an occupied dwelling in violation of MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305. On October 18, 1979, he was sentenced to from 3-1/2 to 15 years imprisonment. He appeals of right, raising an issue of first impression.

At the time of his plea, defendant was not informed by the court of the effect of the 1978 Initiated law commonly known as Proposal B. MCL 791.233b; MSA 28.2303(3). The provisions of Proposal B preclude parole for certain described offenses until the minimum term has been served and further provide that the minimum term shall [697]*697not be diminished by allowances for good time, special good time, or special parole. The effective date of Proposal B was December 10, 1978.

Since breaking and entering is a crime included in Proposal B, defendant is absolutely barred from any parole consideration until he has served his minimum 3-1/2-year term. Defendant claims that the trial court’s failure to inform defendant sua sponte of the consequences of Proposal B was error, justifying a new trial. The identical issue raised here has been considered by this Court.¹

While defendant cites Justice Williams’ dissent in Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 147; 235 NW2d 132 (1975), which stated that a defendant must be informed of the major sentence consequences of a guilty plea, this Court is bound by the majority opinion which holds that the court rules do "not require the judge to inform the defendant of all sentence consequences — only the maximum sentence, any mandatory minimum and, * * * if he is on probation or parole, the possible effect on his status as a probationer or parolee”. Id., 118. In the present case, the trial court fulfilled all of the requirements of the court rules at the plea-taking hearing.

Although the statute in question had been in effect for more than eight months when defendant pled and has now been in effect nearly two years, the Supreme Court has not modified GCR 1963, 785.7 to require an explanation of the statute as part of the plea taking. Absent direction from the Supreme Court or the Legislature, we will not go beyond the clear requirements of the court rule. Cf. People v Larkins, 59 Mich App 199, 202; 229 NW2d 378 (1975), People v Bennett, 76 Mich App 264, 267; 256 NW2d 459 (1977).

[698]*698Affirmed.

Allen and C. L. Hoehn, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

On. August 27, 1979, defendant

pled guilty as charged to breaking and entering an occupied dwelling in violation of MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305. On October 18, 1979, he was sentenced to from 3-1/2 to 15 years imprisonment. He appeals of right, raising an issue of first impression.

At the time of his plea, defendant was not informed by the court of the effect of the 1978 Initiated law commonly known as Proposal B. MCL 791.233b; MSA 28.2303(3). The provisions of Proposal B preclude parole for certain described offenses until the minimum term has been served and further provide that the minimum term shall [697]*697not be diminished by allowances for good time, special good time, or special parole. The effective date of Proposal B was December 10, 1978.

Since breaking and entering is a crime included in Proposal B, defendant is absolutely barred from any parole consideration until he has served his minimum 3-1/2-year term. Defendant claims that the trial court’s failure to inform defendant sua sponte of the consequences of Proposal B was error, justifying a new trial. The identical issue raised here has been considered by this Court.¹

While defendant cites Justice Williams’ dissent in Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 147; 235 NW2d 132 (1975), which stated that a defendant must be informed of the major sentence consequences of a guilty plea, this Court is bound by the majority opinion which holds that the court rules do "not require the judge to inform the defendant of all sentence consequences — only the maximum sentence, any mandatory minimum and, * * * if he is on probation or parole, the possible effect on his status as a probationer or parolee”. Id., 118. In the present case, the trial court fulfilled all of the requirements of the court rules at the plea-taking hearing.

Although the statute in question had been in effect for more than eight months when defendant pled and has now been in effect nearly two years, the Supreme Court has not modified GCR 1963, 785.7 to require an explanation of the statute as part of the plea taking. Absent direction from the Supreme Court or the Legislature, we will not go beyond the clear requirements of the court rule. Cf. People v Larkins, 59 Mich App 199, 202; 229 NW2d 378 (1975), People v Bennett, 76 Mich App 264, 267; 256 NW2d 459 (1977).

[698]*698Affirmed.

Allen and C. L. Hoehn, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 N.W.2d 295, 104 Mich. App. 695, 1981 Mich. App. LEXIS 2836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-solomon-michctapp-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack