Case Name: PEOPLE v. PORTER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1980-08-25
Citations: 99 Mich. App. 510
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 78-3088, 43377
Parties: PEOPLE v PORTER
Judges: Before: Beasley, P.J., and M. F. Cavanagh and W. A. Porter, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 99
Pages: 510–517

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v PORTER
Docket Nos. 78-3088, 43377.
Submitted May 8, 1980, at Detroit.
Decided August 25, 1980.
Julius T. Porter, Jr., pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison, Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Robert L. Evans, J. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently requested appointment of counsel by the Supreme Court for his appeal to that Court on the basis of indigency. The Supreme Court ordered Detroit Recorder’s Court to appoint counsel if defendant was found to be indigent. 399 Mich 1039 (1977). Defendant was so found, and counsel was appointed. Defendant then moved for a new trial or, alternatively, for resentencing. Judge Evans denied the motion for a new trial, but granted resentencing. Defendant appeals the resentencing.
Defendant separately filed a delayed application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals affirmation of the trial court’s conviction with the Supreme Court, which application was granted, the Court reversing defendant’s conviction and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals. 404 Mich 822 (1979). The appeals were consolidated by the Court of Appeals on its own motion. Held:
The trial judge was required to make some further effort to explain to defendant his right to confront his accusers during trial after he stated at the plea-taking that he did not understand the court’s original explanation. In light of this failure, defendant’s guilty plea fails to exhibit the understanding and voluntary nature required of such pleas, and reversal is mandated.
Plea of guilty vacated, and the cause remanded for trial.
Beasley, J., dissented. He would hold that the defendant’s conviction should not be reversed on the grounds that the defendant did not understand his right to confront his accusers based on one negative reply made by the defendant at the plea- taking in response to an inquiry by the trial judge as to the defendant’s understanding of the technical meaning of the right to cross-examine witnesses, and where the trial judge failed to give a further explanation. Rather, an evaluation should be made of the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea within the context of the full plea-taking. He would affirm.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-4] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 485, 487.
Court’s duty to advise or admonish accused as to consequences of plea of guilty, or to determine that he is advised thereof. 97 ALR2d 549.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Guilty Pleas — Confrontation of Witnesses — Explanation of Rights.
The failure of the trial court at a plea-taking to further explain to a defendant in a criminal case his right to confront witnesses after the court had given an explanation which the defendant stated he did not understand mandates reversal.
2. Criminal Law — Guilty Pleas — Explanation of Rights — Courts.
A more detailed explanation by the trial court at a plea-taking in a criminal case is required where a defendant indicates a lack of understanding of the fundamental rights originally explained by the court, prior to accepting a plea of guilty; however, such detailed explanation is not required where the defendant affirmatively indicates that he understands the rights he is abandoning and such understanding may be inferred from the record.
3. Criminal Law — Guilty Pleas — Pleading — Voluntariness.
The rule that the court shall not accept a guilty plea in a criminal case unless it is convinced that it is voluntarily made should require some further inquiry or explanation prior to acceptance of the plea by the court where a defendant indicates that he does not understand one of the rights he is waiving.
Dissent by Beasley, J.
4. Criminal Law — Guilty Pleas — Pleading — Grounds for Reversal.
A conviction of a defendant in a criminal case on a plea of guilty should not be reversed on the grounds that the defendant did not understand his right to confront his accusers where the trial court, during the plea-taking, advised the defendant that he could bring his own witnesses into court, and where, upon receiving a negative reply in response to the court’s inquiry as to defendant’s understanding of the technical meaning of his right to cross-examine witnesses, the court failed to give a further explanation; rather, an evaluation should be made of the voluntariness of the plea within the context of the full plea-taking.
P. E. Bennett, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Beasley, P.J., and M. F. Cavanagh and W. A. Porter, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. .

Opinion:
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
Defendant's guilty plea in this case fails to exhibit the understanding and voluntary nature required of guilty pleas as set forth in People v Jaworski, 387 Mich 21; 194 NW2d 868 (1972).
In the present case the issue is not whether the trial judge's original statement informing the defendant of his right to confront witnesses was adequate, but whether the judge was required to make some further effort to explain that right after the defendant stated that he did not understand the original explanation. The failure of the trial judge to explain the confrontation right further mandates reversal.
In People v Dukes, 48 Mich App 268, 270; 210 NW2d 266 (1973), lv den 392 Mich 814 (1974), while refusing to reverse a guilty plea under the facts there present, this Court stated:
"The defendant also argues that although the trial court did inform him of his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to trial by jury, and right to confrontation as required by People v Jaworski, 387 Mich 21; 194 NW2d 868 (1972), nevertheless his plea should be set aside because a 'fleeting reference' to those rights should be deemed inadequate. While defense counsel expressly disavows a requirement that trial judges give each defendant a brief course in constitutional law, he does feel that a trial judge should 'take a minute or two to explain [things] to the defendant'. While a more detailed explanation would certainly be required when a defendant indicates a lack of understanding of these fundamental rights, this tribunal is not prepared to require a detailed explanation of those rights when the defendant affirmatively indicates that he understands the rights he is abandoning." (Emphasis added.)
In People v Matheson, 70 Mich App 172, 184; 245 NW2d 551 (1976), this Court reversed a guilty plea because the responses of the defendant "manifested a state of confusion which belied the claimed voluntariness of his plea".
The instant record is distinguishable from the record of People v Anderson, People v Harrel, and People v Howell in the Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 123, 124; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). In Anderson, the defendant was advised merely as to his right to confrontation. In Harrel and Howell, the defendants were informed of the right to question witnesses against them. As the explanations made to the defendants used language commonly understood, and the defendants gave no indication that they didn't understand their rights, the record created an inference or supported a conclusion that the defendants understood their rights and intentionally waived them. As the Court said in Guilty Plea Cases, supra, 124:
"In each case the judge informed the defendant of the constitutional and other rights delineated in the rule in such manner as reasonably to warrant the conclusion that the defendant understood what a trial is and that by pleading guilty he was knowingly giving up his right to a trial and the rights and incidents of a trial."
The defendant in the present case never did acknowledge that he understood his right of con frontation. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant's protests that he did not understand his rights were made in bad faith. On earlier occasions, when the defendant initially stated that he did not understand a right, the defendant indicated that he understood after a brief explanation by the judge. The rule that the court shall not accept a guilty plea unless it is convinced it is voluntarily made should require some further inquiry or explanation when a defendant indicates that he does not understand one of the rights he is waiving. The defendant's plea of guilty is hereby vacated and the cause is remanded for trial.
W. A. Porter, J., concurred.