Case Name: PEOPLE v. NELSON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-06-26
Citations: 18 Mich. App. 177
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,235
Parties: PEOPLE v. NELSON
Judges: Before: Levin, P. J., and Holbrook and Danhoe, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 18
Pages: 177–183

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. NELSON
L Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Withdrawal—Miscarriage of Justice.
A motion to vacate a guilty plea after conviction and sentence is addressed to the discretion of the court, and must be based on a showing of a miscarriage of justice.
2. Criminal Law — Due Process — Presumption of Innocence-Burden of Proof.
A convicted defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and he has the burden of showing something more than technical noneompliance with the court rules in order to vacate a guilty plea.
3. Criminal Law — Bight to Assistance of Counsel — Waiver.
A defendant intelligently and knowingly waives his rights to assistance of counsel when he well knows that he could have counsel, either of his own choosing or court appointed, and .... oleets to proceed without counsel.
Beferenoes for Points in Headnotes
’1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 504.
‘2‘ 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 505.
3" 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 316.
4‘ 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § § 487, 489.
'5] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 484 ei seq.
4. Criminal Law — Consequence of Plea — Sufficient Advice.
Trial judge’s advice to a defendant that he would be subject to sentence and a possible prison term if he entered a plea of guilty is sufficient advice of the consequence of the defendant’s plea of guilty.
Dissenting Opinion
Levin, P. J.
5. Criminal Law — Guilty Plea — Acceptance—Direct Questioning of Accused.
Before accepting a guilty plea a trial judge should by direct questioning of the accused establish that the crime was committed and that the defendant participated in its commission.
Appeal from Missaukee, William R. Peterson, J.
Submitted Division 3 February 12, 1969, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 5,235.)
Decided June 26, 1969.
Rehearing denied September 9, 1969.
Application for leave to appeal filed October 15, 1969.
Victor Nelson was convicted on his plea of guilty of assault and unarmed robbery and was placed on probation. Subsequently probation was revoked and he was sentenced to prison. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Gary G. Hoffman, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Robert A. Burns, for defendant.
Before: Levin, P. J., and Holbrook and Danhoe, JJ.

Opinion:
Danhoe, J.
Defendant-appellant pled guilty on January 3, 1966, in the circuit court for Missaukee county to a violation of CL 1948, § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Bev § 28.798), committing an assault and robbery not being armed with a dangerous weapon. On February 9, 1966, defendant was sentenced to 2 years' probation and ordered to make restitution. Subsequently, at a hearing in the same court on December 20, 1967, the probation was revoked and the defendant was sentenced to 3 to 15 years' imprisonment on the original charge. Defendant made a motion to vacate his guilty plea which was denied by the circuit court on July 15,1968 and defendant now appeals that decision.
The motion filed by the defendant addresses itself to the discretion of the court. People v. Vasquez (1942), 303 Mich 340. Since the motion is made after conviction and sentence it must be based upon a showing of a miscarriage of justice. People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719. Defendant, being convicted, no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and he has a burden of showing something more than technical noncompliance with the rules. In fact, he must show that there has been a miscarriage of justice. People v. Winegar, supra.
We are satisfied from a review of this record that the defendant intelligently and knowingly waived his right to counsel well knowing that he could have had counsel, either of his own choosing or court appointed. Examination of the transcript of the arraignment of the defendant and of a co-defendant, who was arraigned at the same time and on the same charge, reveals that the circuit judge advised the defendant of his right to an attorney, and advised bim of his right to either proceed at the present time, or wait for an attorney. The defendant chose to proceed and thereby waived his right to an attorney. People v. Dunn (1968), 380 Mich 693. Further, the •trial judge on several occasions advised the defend ant lie would be subject to sentence and a possible jail term in the State prison if he entered a plea of guilty. This was sufficient to advise the defendant of the consequence of his plea. People v. Menton (1967), 7 Mich App 267; People v. Jarboe (1968), 10 Mich App 476; and People v. Dunn, supra.
Defendant further alleges that he was not advised of his right to counsel at the time he was placed on probation. In this case the question is one of non-importance since the defendant was represented by counsel, of his own choosing, at the time his probation was revoked and the prison sentence imposed.
The defendant, neither in his brief, nor in his motion for new trial, contends that he is in fact innocent and that there has been a patent miscarriage of justice. It is incumbent upon the defendant to show that an injustice has occurred. People v. Winegar, supra; People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131.
Affirmed.
Holbrook, J., concurred.