Case Name: PEOPLE v. NATHAN EDWARDS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1973-05-25
Citations: 47 Mich. App. 606
Docket Number: Docket No. 13888
Parties: PEOPLE v NATHAN EDWARDS
Judges: Before: Danhof, P. J., and McGregor and Miles, * JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 47
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v NATHAN EDWARDS
Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Acceptance of Plea.
A plea of guilty was properly accepted and a defendant effectively waived his important constitutional rights where the record shows that the defendant made his waiver after he was clearly and carefully informed of those rights and indicated an awareness of them by affirmative and unequivocal answers.
Reference for Points in Headnote
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 484 et seq.
Appeal from Kent, John T. Letts, J.
Submitted Division 3 May 11, 1973, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 13888.)
Decided May 25, 1973.
Nathan Edwards was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of statutory rape. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, James K Miller, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Johnston, III, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
John D. Loeks, Jr., for defendant on appeal.
Before: Danhof, P. J., and McGregor and Miles, * JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant was convicted, on a plea of guilty, of statutory rape, MCLA 750.520; MSA 28.788, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the acceptance of his plea was constitutionally infirm because the court did not specifically ask him if he wished to waive important constitutional rights or inform the defendant that a guilty plea waives these rights.
Each of the rights treated in People v Jaworski, 387 Mich 21 (1972), was affirmatively explained to the defendant, in the presence of his counsel. In each statement of constitutional rights, the court asked, "do you understand that?", and the defendant answered, "Yes". When the court asked, "knowing what your rights are do you wish to enter a plea?", and the defendant answered, "Yes".
Jaworski requires only thát waiver of the enumerated rights cannot be presumed when the record is silent as to whether the defendant was made aware of these rights. Here, defendant was clearly and carefully informed of his constitutional rights and indicated an awareness of them by his affirmative and unequivocal answers. This is all that was required. People v Washington, 43 Mich App 551 (1972). The defendant knowingly waived his constitutional (Jaworski) rights.
Affirmed.