Case Name: PEOPLE v. DARDEN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-01-26
Citations: 38 Mich. App. 203
Docket Number: Docket No. 11510
Parties: PEOPLE v DARDEN
Judges: Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Levin and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 38
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v DARDEN
Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Consequences of Plea — Other Convictions.
A trial judge, in accepting a defendant’s plea of guilty, is not required to apprise the defendant of the possible effect that his plea of guilty might have upon Ms subsequent sentencing in a previously-tried case in which defendant was found guilty on another charge before another judge, because a trial judge is not required to engage in speculation as to the hypothetical effects of the plea of guilty on the defendant’s later sentencing proceeding in another matter (GCR 1963, 785.3).
Reference for Points in Headnote
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 490.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, George W. Crockett, Jr., J.
Submitted Division 1 December 9, 1971, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 11510.)
Decided January 26, 1972.
Edward Lee Darden was convicted, on his plea of . guilty, of attempted breaking and entering. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Lawrence W. Rattner, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Levin and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant Edward Lee Darden was convicted upon his plea of guilty of attempted breaking and entering, MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305.
On appeal defendant urges that the trial court committed error in accepting his guilty plea when it failed to apprise him of the possible effect that his plea of guilty might have upon a subsequent sentencing in a previously-tried case in which he was found guilty on another charge before another judge.' Defendant hypothesizes that he might have received a lesser sentence on the other charge if he had refrained from pleading guilty in this cause until sentencing had taken place on his prior conviction.
The trial court advised the defendant of the consequence of his plea and complied with GCR 1963, 785.3 when it informed the defendant that he faced a possible prison sentence of up to five years if he pled guilty to attempted breaking and entering. The court had no duty to apprise defendant of the complained-of collateral consequences of his plea. A trial judge is not required to engage in speculation as to the hypothetical effects of a plea of guilty on a later sentencing proceeding in another matter.
Affirmed.