Case Name: PEOPLE v. AMOS (ON REHEARING)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1973-02-02
Citations: 44 Mich. App. 484
Docket Number: Docket No. 12910
Parties: PEOPLE v AMOS (ON REHEARING)
Judges: Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and T. M. Burns and Targonski, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 44
Pages: 484–487

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v AMOS (ON REHEARING)
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law—Sentence—Presentence Report—Watver. .
A criminal defendant has the power to waive his statutory right to have the trial court examine a presentence report prior to sentencing (MCLA 771.14).
Dissent by T. M. Burns, J.
2. Criminal Law—Sentence—Indeterminate Sentences—Presen-tence Report—Waiver.
A criminal defendant should not be permitted to waive the preparation of a presentence investigation report and frustrate the policy behind indeterminate sentencing, because the right affects both the defendant and public at large and is not some abstract right that is subject to waiver (MCLA 769.8, 771.14).
Reference for Points in Headnotes
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 219.
Appeal from Jackson, John C. Dalton, J.
Submitted Division 2 May 10, 1972, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 12910.)
Decided February 2, 1973.
Curtis L. Amos was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of escape from prison. Defendant appealed. Remanded for resentencing. On rehearing,
affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Bruce A. Barton, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Allan C. Miller, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant.
Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and T. M. Burns and Targonski, JJ.
Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
On Rehearing
J. H. Gillis, P. J.
This case is before us on rehearing. The facts and circumstances are fully set forth in our prior opinion at 42 Mich App 629 (1972).
Therein we held that MCLA 771.14; MSA 28.1144, makes mandatory the preparation of a presentence report before imposition of sentence. We held further that defendant was powerless to waive his statutory right to have the report prepared.
On rehearing, we do not reach the question whether the preparation of the report is mandatory. Assuming arguendo that it is, we are nevertheless convinced that a defendant does have the power to waive a statutory right.
It is not seriously questioned that a defendant has the power to waive constitutional rights, provided he does so intelligently, understandingly and voluntarily. Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464; 58 S Ct 1019, 1023; 82 L Ed 1461, 1466 (1938); Cam-ley v Cochran, 369 US 506; 82 S Ct 884; 8 L Ed 2d 70 (1962); Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238; 89 S Ct 1709; 23 L Ed 2d 274 (1969). See, e.g, People v Jaworski, 387 Mich 21 (1972). Constitutional rights take precedence over statutory rights. US Const, Art VI, § 2. See also 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, § 50, pp 221-223.
If a defendant has the power to waive rights deemed to be of constitutional dimensions, a forti- ori he has the power to waive a right deemed of lesser importance, i.e., a statutory right.
There is no question on this record that the waiver herein was made intelligently, understandingly and voluntarily. Accordingly, we affirm.
Targonski, J., concurred.