People v. Taylor

155 N.W.2d 723, 9 Mich. App. 333
CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 9, 1968
DocketDocket 2,757
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 155 N.W.2d 723 (People v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 155 N.W.2d 723, 9 Mich. App. 333 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Gilmore, J.

On April 17, 1965, defendant was arrested without a warrant and was held by the *335 police without a charge being placed ag’ainst him; he was questioned at intervals until April 19, 1965, when he was charged with breaking and entering of a business establishment with intent to commit a larceny 1 therein and arraigned the same day before a magistrate on such charge. He waived preliminary examination and was bound over to circuit court. On arraignment there April 20, 1965, he stood mute and a plea of not guilty was entered. On April 23, 1965, this plea was withdrawn and a guilty plea was accepted. On May 14, 1965, he was sentenced to prison for a minimum of 29 months and a maximum of 10 years. On January 11, 1966, acting in propria persona, defendant filed a petition to withdraw plea of guilty, set aside conviction and grant a new trial. That same day counsel was appointed for defendant, and this was the first time he had legal representation, although he waived appointment of counsel at arraignment in circuit court. Defendant’s petition was denied May 24, 1966, and he appeals.

Although defendant raises and argues several issues on appeal, some of which raise questions as to the voluntariness of the plea, we believe one issue is dispositive thereof, and it questions the compliance in the trial court with the requirements of GrCB. 1963, 785.3(2). 2 At no time did the trial judge advise defendant what .punishment might follow his conviction by plea of guilty. Our recent decision in People v. Charles A. White (1967), 8 Mich App *336 220, holds that such advice bears no relation to the phrase “consequence of his plea,” but such advice is involved in the determination required by 785.3-(2), supra, that the plea was “freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, without undue influence, compulsion, or duress, and without promise of leniency.” ' The record before us does not satisfactorily disclose that defendant’s plea was so made, and we hold that it was an abuse of discretion to deny his petition to withdraw plea, set aside conviction and for a new trial.

Although we have statutory standards for accepting pleas of guilty, (CL 1948, § 768.35 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058]), and have had such standards since 1875, 3 and although we have had more specific standards by rule since 1947, (Court Rule No 35A [1945]), 4 and although much has been written by the Supreme Court and this Court 5 with respect to what *337 a trial court must do to satisfy these standards in accepting pleas of guilty, we have found no case which fully interprets all of such standards. In view of the many appeals reaching this Court because of alleged noncompliance by the trial courts with these requirements, we believe a specification by this Court of what it considers minimal compliance therewith and a suggested procedure for attaining such compliance will be a service to the trial bench and the bar.

It must be emphasized that before a plea of guilty can be accepted in any case where a defendant is charged with a felony, the defendant must be advised of his right to counsel, afforded an opportunity to request one, and must be provided with a lawyer, if he is indigent and desires to have counsel. While it is true that a defendant can knowingly and intelligently waive counsel and plead without counsel, unless the record is absolutely clear that the defendant waives counsel, it is incumbent upon the trial court to adjourn the matter and not accept a plea of guilty until counsel has had an opportunity to consult with his client.

Henceforth in all cases pending trial at the time of the handing down of this opinion, the following are minimum requirements for accepting a plea of guilty in felony cases whether or not defendant has counsel:

First, a verbatim record of the entire proceedings shall be made.

Second, the court must inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation. In doing so the court should avoid police jargon or catch titles and inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation in terms *338 that a layman should comprehend under the circumstances. Additionally, the court shall determine whether the information has been read to the defendant and read or cause the same to be read to him unless he expressly waives the reading thereof.

Third, the court must advise the defendant of the consequence of a plea of guilty. This means the court must inform him that he waives the right to trial by jury or the judge without jury and all the incidents thereof.

Fourth, the court shall inquire as to whether the defendant has made any confession to the police prior to the time of his plea of guilty and ascertain if the confession is a reason for making the plea. If it appears that the confession is a basis for the plea, before accepting the plea the court shall advise the defendant that he is entitled to a Walker type evidentiary hearing 6 to ascertain if the confession was freely, voluntarily and constitutionally made. In applicable cases this hearing shall be had unless expressly waived.

Fifth, the court must ascertain before accepting the plea that the plea has been freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, without any undue influence, compulsion, duress or promise of leniency. This means that the court must determine whether or not any promises of any kind have been made by anyone as to the court’s disposition of the case, and if such were made, refuse the plea. It must advise the defendant that no promises can be made as to the disposition. Further, the court must satisfy itself on the record that the defendant understands that he has no obligation to plead guilty and that he subjects himself to anything up to the maximum punishment by doing so. The court must advise defendant of the maximum sentence that can be- im *339 posed and the minimum sentence if there is a mandatory minimum. The court shall ascertain if the defendant is on probation or parole, and inform him of the possible consequence of probation or parole violation.

If at this point the court is satisfied that the defendant thoroughly understands the consequence of his plea, that he made the plea freely, understandingly and voluntarily and without any promise of leniency, or any undue influence, compulsion or duress, the court shall determine from a narration by the defendant or an interrogation of him that the defendant actually committed the crime to which he has pleaded guilty. In other words, the defendant should be asked to state on the record what he did and the court must satisfy itself from the defendant’s narrative- or responses that the defendant actually is guilty of all the elements of the crime with which he is charged. Then and only then can the court accept the plea of guilty.

The following is a suggested form of interrogation.

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

Related

People v. Schleicher
190 N.W.2d 738 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)
People v. Lewis
185 N.W.2d 172 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
People v. Medley
183 N.W.2d 433 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
People v. Palma
181 N.W.2d 808 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
People v. Newsom
181 N.W.2d 551 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
People v. Osterhout
181 N.W.2d 274 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
People v. Taylor
175 N.W.2d 715 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1970)
People v. Lucy
175 N.W.2d 334 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
People v. Kinsman
175 N.W.2d 304 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
People v. Nelson
170 N.W.2d 846 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1969)
State v. Sisco
169 N.W.2d 542 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1969)
People v. Kindell
168 N.W.2d 909 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1969)
People v. Ferguson
164 N.W.2d 547 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1968)
People v. Wyngaard
160 N.W.2d 609 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 N.W.2d 723, 9 Mich. App. 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-taylor-michctapp-1968.