Case Name: PEOPLE v. BUGAI
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-05-18
Citations: 33 Mich. App. 465
Docket Number: Docket No. 8824
Parties: PEOPLE v. BUGAI
Judges: Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Bronson and Danhof, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 33
Pages: 465–469

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. BUGAI
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty — Simple Misdemeanor — Examination by Court.
The requirement that a judge examine a guilty-pleading defendant to determine the voluntariness of his plea does not apply to a simple misdemeanor, a misdemeanor where the maximum penalty is not more than 90 days imprisonment of a fine not more than $100, or both (MCLA §§ 750.504, 768.35; GCB 1963, 785.3).
Dissent by Lesinski, C.J.
2. Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty — Court’s Examination — Misdemeanor Plea — Eelony Charged.
The trial court i/n every prosecution where the defendant has been charged with a felony, must examine the guilty-pleading defendant as to the factual basis of the plea and as to whether the plea has been induced by undue influence, compulsion, duress, or the promise of leniency; the fact that the defendant is pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge does not alter the court’s duty where the defendant was originally charged with a felony (GCM 1963, 785.3)
3. Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty — Court’s Examination — Misdemeanor Plea — Eelony Charged.
Failure of the trial court to conduct an examination into the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea of guilty of a simple misdemeanor, receiving and concealing stolen property valued at less than $100 constituted reversible error where the defendant had been originally charged with a felony, receiving and concealing stolen property valued at more than $100, because the court’s duty to conduct an examination applies in every prosecution where the defendant has been charged with a felony (GCM 1963, 785.3).
Beferences for Points in Headnotes
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 485-487, 505.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 486-492.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Joseph E. Maher, J.
Submitted Division 1 April 7, 1971, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 8824.)
Decided May 18, 1971.
David Bugai was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of receiving and concealing stolen property valued under $100. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Arthur N. Rishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Donnell P. O’Callaghan, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Bronson and Danhof, JJ.

Opinion:
Danhof, J.
Defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property valued at less than $100. MCLA § 750.535 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28-.803). Defendant appeals as of right.
Defendant's only claim on appeal is that he pled guilty under the belief that he would not be prosecuted for violation of probation on another charge. The record does not support defendant's argument. The trial court informed defendant that he might, as the result of his plea of guilty to the instant offense, be charged with violation of probation.
The dissenting opinion would vacate the guilty plea because the trial court, in accepting defendant's plea, failed to comply with GCR 1963, 785.3. We disagree for two reasons. First, the defendant has not raised the issue that the plea was improper under GCR 1963, 785.3. Second, even if the issue had been properly raised, GCR 1963, 785.3 is not applicable in the instant case.
Defendant pled guilty to a misdemeanor under MCLA § 750.535 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28-.803). Since this statute fails to expressly provide the penalty to be imposed, MCLA § 750.504 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.772) becomes operative. This statute prescribes a penalty of not more than 90 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than $100, or both. The offense, due to the permissible maximum penalty under the statute, is designated a "simple misdemeanor" as opposed to a "circuit court misdemeanor". People v. Mallory (1967), 378 Mich 538, 557, 558.
In People v. Barry (1970), 23 Mich App 121, 122, this Court stated:
"Although a trial judge is clearly under an obligation in accepting a guilty plea to comply with the respective court rule (GCR 1963, 785.3) and statutory provision (MCLA § 768.35 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058]) in felony cases and circuit court misdemeanors, such responsibility does not extend to simple misdemeanors."
Arguably, GCR 1963, 785.3 could be extended to include a simple misdemeanor which provides a permissible maximum sentence of three months imprisonment or a $100 fine, or both. See People v. Mallory, supra, at 559. However, until directed to do otherwise, we are of the opinion that the holding in People v. Barry, supra, should be followed.
Judgment affirmed.
Bronson, J., concurred.