Case Name: PEOPLE v. LEWIS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-12-09
Citations: 28 Mich. App. 664
Docket Number: Docket No. 5396
Parties: PEOPLE v. LEWIS
Judges: Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and Weipert, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 28
Pages: 664–673

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. LEWIS
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty.
Appellate courts should be concerned with substance, not with form, in determining if a plea of guilty should be set aside, and the fundamental inquiry is whether there has been a miscarriage of justice (GCR 1963, 529.1; CL 1948, § 769.26).
Concurrence by Weipert, J.
2. Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty — Voluntariness—Appeal and Error — Direct Appeal — Discretion.
Direct appeal from a conviction based on a guilty plea, presenting solely the question whether upon the record the trial judge abused his discretion in accepting the plea, is not the correct way to challenge either the ultimate truth or the voluntariness of the plea.
3. Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty — Voluntariness—Inquiry— Quasi-Administrative Function.
The inquiry into and examination of the voluntariness of a plea of guilty required by statute and court rule is a quasi-administrative function designed to protect unknowing defendants from their mistakes (MCLA § 768.35; GCR 1963, 785.3[Z]J.
4. Attorney and Client — Plea op Guilty.
A responsible Bar or the Judicial Tenure Commission should initiate grievance investigation of the responsible parties where either lawyer or judge fails so utterly that a plea of guilty must be set aside for rudimentary errors in its taking, and the plea-tendering defendant is found to be indeed unadvised.
References for Points in Headnotes
5 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 867.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 486 et seq.
7 Am Jur 2d, Attorney at Law § 33.
5. Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty — New Trial.
Setting aside pleas of guilty where no credible proof is presented and adjudication made that the plea was untrue, coerced or fraudulently induced, or tendered out of ignorance of the defendant’s rights, not only defeats the prompt deterrence of the criminal law but wastes public resources in duplicated hearings and new trials when the evidence is stale.
6. Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty — Attorney and Client.
Trial court is entitled to assume that counsel has fully advised defendant of his rights where a defendant represented by counsel, court-appointed or self-engaged, tenders a plea of guilty; nonetheless, the trial court is obliged to elicit, im, a dialogue between judge and defendant on the record, the minimum data specified in a court rule and should the defendant say anything casting doubt on whether counsel had indeed performed his duty or suggesting to an ordinarily perceptive judge that he is confused or laboring under some misapprehension, then the court must inquire further and unless the matter is readily clarified by additional inquiry, the court should decline to accept the plea of guilty at that time (GCB 1963, 785.3 [*] ).
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Gerald W. Groat, J. Submitted Division 1 April 8, 1970, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 5396.)
Decided December 9, 1970.
Josepb Lewis was convicted, on Ms plea of guilty, of assault with intent to rob being armed. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R, Carnovale, Chief, Appellaté Department, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Blinstrub, O’Neill & Shannon, for defendant on appeal.
Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and Weipert, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
J. H. Gillis, P. J.
Defendant Joseph Lewis pled guilty to assault with intent to rob while being armed. MOLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28-.284). Defendant brings this appeal as of right, arguing that the plea of guilty was not properly taken, by the trial court and should be set aside.
The pertinent portions of the transcript are set forth in the concurring opinion. This case is controlled by People v. Hobdy (1968), 380 Mich 686; People v. Dunn (1968), 380 Mich 693; People v. Stearns (1968), 380 Mich 704; and People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719. As the Court noted in Dunn, supra, p 701:
"In conclusion, we cite again the court rule and statute cited in People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719; GCR 1963, 529.1, and CL 1948, §769.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1096). The import of both the rule and the statute is that on review courts should be concerned with substance, not with form, that the fundamental inquiry is whether there has been a miscarriage of justice".
This record does not disclose a miscarriage of justice.
Affirmed.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.