Case Name: PEOPLE v. McFADDEN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1988-08-15
Citations: 170 Mich. App. 640
Docket Number: Docket No. 99998
Parties: PEOPLE v McFADDEN
Judges: Before: Kelly, P.J., and Doctoroff and J. T. CORDEN, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 170
Pages: 640–643

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v McFADDEN
Docket No. 99998.
Submitted October 21, 1987, at Lansing.
Decided August 15, 1988.
Reuben Devon McFádden was convicted on his plea of guilty of larceny in a building and of being a habitual offender, fourth offense, Oakland Circuit Court, Robert L. Templin, J. Defendant appealed, claiming that his arrest without a warrant was not supported by probable cause and the trial court therefore erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and quash the information.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. The issues defendant raises on appeal relate to the state’s capacity to prove his factual guilt. Thus, unless defendant’s plea was conditional, he has waived his right to appeal these issues.
2. A conditional plea must be agreed to by the defendant, the prosecutor and the judge. Here, the record contains no indication of the prosecutor’s agreement to a conditional plea by defendant. Defendant therefore did not tender a conditional plea from which he may claim a right of appeal.
Affirmed.
Kelly, P.J.; dissented to state that the record of the plea hearing shows the plea was accepted by the judge on the condition that issues raised by defendant in his motion to suppress evidence and to quash the information would be preserved and that the prosecutor did not object. Judge Kelly Would rémand the casé to give defendant the option of withdrawing his plea within thirty days, and would order the trial court to grant such a motion. If no such motion was made, Judge Kelly would affirm the conviction and sentence.
Criminal Law — Appeal — Guilty Pleas — Waiver.
A defendant who pleads guilty waives the right to appeal issues relating to the state’s capacity to prove his factual guilt unless the plea was a conditional plea agreed to by the defendant, the prosecutor and the trial judge.
References
Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 469 et seq.
Validity and effect of criminal defendant’s express waiver of right to appeal as part of negotiated plea agreement. 89 ALR3d 864.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, L. Brooks Patterson, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert C. Williams, Chief, Appellate Division, and Paul J. Fischer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Barbara J. Safran, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Doctoroff and J. T. CORDEN, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
J. T. Corden, J.
Defendant pled guilty to the charges of larceny in a building, MCL 750.360; MSA 28.592, and being a fourth-felony habitual offender, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084. Defendant was sentenced to two to fifteen years' imprisonment on the habitual offender conviction. Defendant appeals as of right and we affirm.
Defendant's sole issue regards his arrest without a warrant. Defendant contends that his arrest was not supported by probable cause; thus, the trial court erred in failing to suppress and exclude illegally seized evidence and in failing to quash the information based thereon.
We must first determine whether defendant has waived his right to appeal the issue asserted. It is clear that under People v New, 427 Mich 482, 491; 398 NW2d 358 (1986), the issue asserted by defendant is waived since it relates to the capacity of the state to prove defendant's factual guilt.
Defendant contends that he has preserved the issue by the procedural device of a "conditional" plea of guilty. People v Reid, 420 Mich 326; 362 NW2d 655 (1984). A review of the record shows that defendant's attorney requested the court to accept defendant's plea while preserving the issue defendant raised in his motion to quash the information. The court stated that the motion was preserved. However, the prosecutor did not respond to defendant's request nor did the court inquire about the prosecutor's position. Under Reid, supra at 329, defendant, the prosecutor, and the judge must agree to the conditional plea. Since the prosecutor did not, defendant has unconditionally pled guilty and has waived the issue he now seeks to assert on appeal. People v Kim Williams, 160 Mich App 738, 740; 408 NW2d 540 (1987).
Affirmed.
Doctoroff, J., concurred.